IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-5) 


1.0  gK£  ta 

1.1     l.'"'^° 


—      A" 


Photographic 

.Sciences 

CorporatiQn 


23  WIST  MAIN  STMIT 

WnSTIR.N.Y.  USM 

(716)  I72-4S03 


CSHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/iCIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  iMicroreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microraproductions  historiquas 


TMhnieal  anil  ■iblloypWc  NotM/Notat  taehnlquM  m  MMIoflrapMquM 


TiM  Inttltiit*  hM  sttwiiptad  to  obtain  ttia  baat 
original  oopy  avaNabla  for  mmlng.  FOaturaa  of  tMa 
ccHiy  wMch  may  ba  bibUograpMeaNy  unlqua, 
whieh  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  ttia 
raprodwetion.  or  which  may  significantly  changa 
tha  uauai  mathod  of  filming,  ara  chacltad  balow. 


□   Colourad  covert/ 
Couvartura  da  coiilaur 


I — I   Covart  damagad/ 


Couvartura  andommagte 


□  Covars  rastorad  and/or  iaminatad/ 
Couvartura  rattaurAa  at/ou  pallicuiAa 

□   Cover  titia  misting/ 
La  titra  da  couvartura  manqua 

□  C9iourad  mapt/ 
Cartat  gAographiquat  an  couiaur 


D 


D 
D 


D 


D 


Colourad  inic  O.a.  othar  than  biua  or  black)/ 
Encra  da  couiaur  (i.a.  autra  qua  biaua  ou  noirai 


I     I  Colourad  platat  and/or  iiluttrationt/ 


Pianchat  at/ou  iiluttrationt  mn  coulour 

Bound  with  othar  mctarial/ 
RaliA  avac  d'autrat  documantt 

Tight  binding  may  eauta  thadowt  or  dittortion 
along  intarior  margin/ 

La  rt  iiura  tarrAa  paut  cautar  da  I'ombra  ou  da  la 
dittortion  la  long  da  la  marga  intAriaura 

Blank  laavat  addad  during  rattoration  may 
appaar  within  tha  taxt.  Whanavar  pottibia,  thate 
hava  baan  omittad  from  filming/ 
II  to  paut  qua  cartainat  pagat  bianchat  ajoutiat 
lort  d'una  rattauration  apparaittant  dant  la  taxta. 
malt,  lortqua  cala  Atait  pottibia,  cat  pagat  n'ont 
pat  4t«  fiimiat. 

Additional  eommantt:/ 
Commantairat  tupplAmantairat; 


L'Inatltut  a  microf ilm4  la  maWaur  axamplaira 
quH  hil  a  *t*  poaaiMa  da  ta  procurar.  Lat  ddtaHt 
da  aat  aRampMra  qui  tant  paut-Atra  uniquaa  du 
point  da  vua  bIbNographlqua,  qui  pauvant  modifier 
una  imaga  raprodulta,  ou  c|ui  pauvam  axigar  una 
modification  dant  la  m4thoda  normala  da  fHmaga 
tont  indlqudt  d-daatout. 


o 
fi 


I — I  Colourad  pagat/ 


Pagat  da  couiaur 

Pagat  damaged/ 
Paget  endommegAet 

Pagat  rettored  and/oi 

Pagat  reetaurAet  et/ou  peilicul4et 

Paget  ditcoloured.  ttained  or  foxe< 
Paget  dAcolorAet.  tachetAet  ou  piquiet 

Paget  detached/ 
Paget  dAtachiet 

Showthrough/ 
Trantparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quaiit*  in4gaie  de  I'imprettion 

Includet  tuppiementary  materii 
Comprend  du  matiriel  tuppMmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Adition  ditponlble 


I — I  Pagat  damaged/ 

I — I  Pagat  rettored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~7|  Paget  ditcoloured.  ttained  or  foxed/ 

r^  Paget  detached/ 

r~l^  Sho%vthrough/ 

r~1  Quality  of  print  variet/ 

^~^^  includet  tuppiementery  material/ 

I — I  Only  edition  available/ 


ot 
fit 
tl 
or 


D 


Paget  wholly  or  pertially  obtcured  by  errata 
tlipt.  tittuet.  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
enture  the  bett  pottible  image/ 
Let  pagat  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obtcurciet  per  un  feuiliet  d'errata.  una  peiure, 
etc..  ont  M  filmAet  A  nouveau  de  faqon  h 
obtenir  la  meiileure  image  pottible. 


Tl 
th 
Tl 


Ml 
dif 
en 
bei 
rig 
rec 
mi 


Thit  item  it  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  ett  film*  au  taux  da  rMuction  indiquA  ci*dettout. 

10X  14X  ItX  22X 


2SX 


30X 


y 


12X 


16X 


»X 


MX 


28X 


32X 


^^KmTi 


1 

Ths  copy  fllincd  hwc  hM  bcMi  raproduo#Q  uimmi 

to  Hm  gMisratlty  of: 

oinAroalti  da: 

« 

*--**- 

Ubrory  of  tho  PubNc 

U  MbHothAqua  daa  Arehhwa 

•Mil* 

Mdu 

Arehivot  of  Canodo 

puMlquaa  du  Canada 

nodiftor 

IT  una 

Tho  imogoo  appoarlfig  hoio  aro  tho  boot  quollty 

Laa  imagaa  suKraMitaa  ont  4tA  raprodultaa  avac  la 

Mmag* 

poasiblo  considoHng  tho  condition  and  toglbllity 

plua  grand  soln.  compto  tonu  do  la  condition  ot 

of  tho  original  eofiy  and  in  kooping  with  tho 

filming  contract  spacificationa. 

eonformiti  ovoc  loo  condltlona  «!u  contrat  da 
filmaga. 

Original  copioo  In  printad  popar  covora  ara  fNmad 

Laa  axamplalraa  originaux  dont  lo  coiivorturo  on 

baglnning  with  tha  fnant  covor  and  anding  on 

poplor  oot  Imprimoo  sont  fHmaa  an  common^ont 

tho  loot  paga  with  a  printad  or  INiiatratad  impraa- 

par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarmlnant  aoit  par  la 

•ion,  or  tho  bacic  covor  whon  approprlato.  AN 

othor  original  copioo  ara  fllmad  baglnning  on  tho 

dimpraaalon  ou  dlNuatration.  soit  por  lo  second 

f  irat  paga  with  a  printad  or  ilHiatratad  impraa- 

•lon,  and  anding  on  tho  ioat  paga  with  a  printad 

orlginoux  sont  filmAs  on  common^ant  par  la 

It 

or  iiluatratad  impraaaion. 

pramMra  paga  qui  comporto  uno  omprointo 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustration  ot  on  torminont  par 
la  damlAra  paga  qui  comporto  uno  tollo 
omprointOa 

Tha  iaat  racordod  frama  on  oach  microflcha 

Un  doa  symbdoa  auhranta  apparattra  sur  la 

shall  contain  tho  aymboi  -^  (moaning  "CON- 

damMra Imaga  da  chaqua  mieroficho.  colon  lo 

TINUED"),  or  tho  symbol  ▼  (moaning  "END"). 

caa:  la  symbdo  -^  signlfio  "A  8UIVRE".  lo 

whichavar  applias. 

symbolo  ▼  signlfio  "FIN". 

Maps,  platas.  charts,  ate.  may  ba  fllmad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratios.  Those  too  larga  to  bo 
antiraly  included  in  ono  sxpoaura  ara  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  comer,  left  to 
right  end  top  to  bottom,  es  meny  frames  es 
required.  The  following  diegrems  illustrete  the 
method: 


1 

2 

3 

Lee  certee,  plenches.  tebloeux.  etc..  pouvont  Atre 
filmAs  A  doe  taux  da  rAductlon  diff Arents. 
Lorsquo  lo  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  aaui  cllchA.  ii  est  fHmA  A  portir 
do  I'engle  supAriour  geucho.  do  gauche  A  drohe. 
ot  do  haut  en  bes.  en  pronam  la  nombre 
d'imeges  nAcesseire.  Lee  diegrammee  suivants 
iilustrent  ie  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

i 

4 

5 

6 

SPEECH 


or 


HON.  EUJAH  WARD,  OF  NEW  YORK, 


ON  THI 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  JUDGE  WATROUS; 


DILITERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  DECEMBER  14,  1858. 


r-'"^:: 


■r.-x'^^     „' 


«  '  -»•.;  ,v     T-.J. 


■V.'"^'    ■;..-.:    -V; 


0 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE. 

1858. 


'.-rZ:^^-. 


''"■i>*f^«3tf4ii'>i'i*llg|t«l.>i-4^,tr.,*«W1[^  ■'^ff»V*^'^''i^'*»»<B*,y*fi>-  "■ 


-Q  .8:iTl^vAr; 


%y.m 


I 


m^»lV,ttt:v^m,^ 


•»^«t^^*  .' ,.  ft^^J . 


'"»>■..■  rtj  ft'. 


SPEECH. 


"1 


•at 


Tke  BoDM  htvinf  moaud  tbe  eouMention  of  Om  imo- 
taHviif  rcpoiUd  by  tba  ConainM  on  the  J«4ielMy,  to  itf- 
•raiiM  10  llM  impctchniMil  of  Jadge  Waumii— 

Mr.  WARD  wid: 

Mr.  Stbakbr:  1  approach  tkia  aubject  of  the 
propoaed  impeachment  of  Judge  Watroua  with 
a  due  aense  of  ita  importance.    I  ({ave  to  the  re- 

Sorta  and  evidence  that  consideration  which  waa 
emanded  by  my  duty  aa  a  legialator,  during  the 
iNlerim  between  the  ae8aiona,to  enable  me  to  ar> 
rive  at  a  Just  conclusion  in  determining  my  vote, 
but  without  any  intention  of  takingpart  w  the 
discussion. 

If  the  advocates  of  Judge  Watroua  had  been 
content  widi  their  vindication  of  him  from  the 
chaigea  preferredi  I  should  have  remained  silent. 
But  aa  some  of  them  have  thought  proper  to  as- 
sail the  accusers,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  address  the 
House,  for  reasons  that  will  appear  in  the  course 
of  my  remarks. 

Sir,  no  member  haa  a  higher  respect  for  an  inde- 
pendent judiciary  than  myself.  I  would  do  noth- 
ing to  impair  it;  but  I  do  not  believe  in  that  inde- 
pendence wbichtia  characterized  by  tyranny  and 
oppreaaion.  I  believe  in  that  independence  which 
is  governed  by  an  honest  heart  ana  an  integrity  of 
purpose,  without  fear  or  favor. 

In  no  country  ia  an  independent  and  fearless  ju- 
diciary more  important  than  in  ours.  The  pecu- 
liar atructure  of  our  Government,  divided,  aa  ita 
Ainctions  are,  into  executive,  legialative,  and  ju- 
dicial, the  latter  assumes  a  hien  character  and  « 
position  of  vast  importance.  It  may  be  said  to 
stand  between  liberty  and  despotism,  and  ia  the 
great  bulwark  between  legislative  encroachment 
and  the  riehta  of  the  people. 

If  the  CRtngress  enact  an  unconstitutional  law, 
the  court  can  declare  it  void.  This  great  power 
that  it  possesses,  renders  it  necessary  that  tne  ju- 
diciary ahould  not  only  be  independent,  but  pare, 
honest,  and  without  taint  or  suspicion. 

I  do  not  propose  to  follow  the  course  of  Ihis 
debate  into  an  extended  investigation, oran  analy- 
sis of  the  evidence  againat  Judge  Watrous.  There 
are  some  points,  however,  in  this  proceeding  for 


impaachawm,  t»  which  I  woald  invite  the  atUao 
tioB  of  ike  House. 

I  insiat  that  we  ahould  hold  the  right  of  petition 
sacred,  and  that  the  exereiae  of  this  gnat  repab> 
Mean  privilege  of  the  eiliien  ahould  be  treated  with 
proper  considantion  by  those  who  represent  the 
rights  and  inltreata  of  the  peopk. 

It  is  not  praper  for  a  member  of  this  hononble 
body  to  reproaeh  any  man  for  the  ezeieiao  of  thia 
right.  It  la  not  for  tha  Houaa  to  go  beyond  the 
suojeot-matter  of  the  petitian,  to  Msail  tha  ehar- 
acler  and  motivea  of  tne  citisen  who  seeks  to  ss* 
cure  his  rights,  and  invoksa  the  aoastitational 
power  of  Congnsa  for  the  redraaa  of  grievanees. 

Sir,  if  the  right  of  petition— if  one  of  the  moat 
important  guaranteea  of  oar  libertiea  is  to  ba 
subverted,  made  a  aouroe  of  invective  againat  tha 
character  and  motivea  of  eitizena  who  approach 
Conereaa.  in  a  proceeding  of  thia  nature,  it  ia  of 
but  uttle  benefit  to  the  people. 

For  myaelf,  I  hava  been  taoght  to  recard  the 
right  of  petition  as  one  of  the  moat  aacredaecvred 
to  ua  by  the  Conatitution,  and  intimately  con« 
nected  with  the  libertiea  of  the  people;  and  I  be- 
lieve it  ia  the  duty  of  the  Houae  to  eonaider  the 
matter  of  the  petition  preferred,  and  the  evidence 
adduced  here  for  the  impeachment  of  a  Federal 
judge,  aolely  on  ita  menu,  and  with  a  view  to 
determine  the  gnilt  or  innocence  of  the  aeeuaed 
merely;  and  not  to  permit  the  iaaue  to  be  changed 
by  an  attempt  to  place  hia  accuaera  on  trial  in  nis 
stead,  by  allowing  their  character  to  be  assailed. 

I  have  noticed,  with  regret,  attempts  made  to 
draw  the  attention  of  the  Houae  from  inqniriea 
into  the  grounds  for  the  impeachment  of  Judge 
Watroua,  by  attache  upon  the  motivea  of  the  me- 
morialiata,  including  the  honor  and  integrity  of  tha 
people  of  Texaa  whojoin  in  the  deaire  for  the 
trial  of  the  accuaed.  Tne  memorialiau  aeek,  and 
properly  applied  for  redreea;  and  I  do  not  wiah 
that  the  attention  of  thia  Houae  ahould  be  led 
away  from  inquiring  into  the  grave  chargea  made 
againat  a  judicial  officer  of  thie  Government.  It 
muat  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  ia  Judge  Watroua 
that  ia  arraigned ,  and  not  Simon  Mussina ;  it  is  his 


mmmtm* 


MMki 


oAeial  charaeter  that  hu  to  b«  pronounced  upon, 
and  thia  inreatigation  should  proceed  upon  in 
merita;  tba  Houm  mutt  do  iia  duty  to  the  coun- 
try* detarmioinf  whether  there  ii  reasonable  sus- 
Sicion  of  the  gtiilt  of  Judee  Watrous,  and  if  he 
I  impeachable  upon  the  allegations  that  have  been 
slanainc  against  him  (he  last  ten  years. 

Let  tna  House  determine  this  ouestion  on  the 
evidence,  and  the  evidence  alone.  The  dignity  of 
the  Houae  forbids  that  it  should  descend  to  vitu- 
perate priTate  and  unaccused  citizens,  who  have 
appealed  here  for  redress  of  wrongs,  and  not  for 
inquisition  and  Judgment  upon  their  motives. 

From  the  course  of  a  portion  of  this  debate, 
we  should  suppose  that  Mr.  Mussina  was  on  his 
trial,  instead  of  the  real  parly. 

Th«  nam*  of  thia  gentleman  has  been  drawn 
into  this  debate  unjustly.  He  comes  before  this 
honorable  body  underi||  well-defined  right,  and  is 
entitled  to  our  protection. 

The  distinguished  member  from  Tennessee, 

!Mr.  Rbadt,]  particularly,  exhibited  a  prejudiced 
leeling  in  hia  remarks  against  the  memorialist. 
He  seems  to  regard  it  as  a  species  of  effrontery 
in  him  toaak  for  an  investigation  into  Judge  Wat- 
rous's  conduct. 

The  House  must  ba  sensible  that  a  great  wrong 
has  been  done  to  the  cause  of  justice  in  permit- 
ting the  inquiry  to  be  thus  diverted  from  Judge 
Watroua,  and  that  an  eoually  great  wrons  has 
been  committed  towards  Mr.  Mussina,  in  allow- 
ing aecuaations,  without  evidence,  to  be  made  on 
the  floor  of  this  House  against  his  character  and 
motivea. 

Sir,  I  do  not  conceive  that  these  proceedings 
furnish  any  occasion  for  going  into  an  investiga- 
tion of  Mr.  Mussina'a  claims  to  the  respect,  con- 
fidence, and  good  opinion  of  honorable  members 
of  this  body. 

In  reply  to  the  assaults  upon  his  character, 
made  on  this  floor  without  warrant  and  in  lan- 
guage I  deem  not  proper,  on  the  part  of  the  advo- 
cates of  Judge  Watrous,  it  ii  but  just  that  I 
should  say  Mr.  Mussina  is  a  resident  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to 
represent,  where  he  has  resided  upwards  of  two 
yeara;  and  it  ia  due  to  my  convictions  to  add  that 
from  personal  acquaintance  with  him,  as  well  as 
frord  a  knowledge  of  the  part  he  has  borne  in  this 
proceeding,  I  am  persuaded  of  the  integrity  of  his 
motives  and  the  entire  right  he  has,  and  the  pro- 
priety of  his  conduct  in  askinfx  the  investigation 
of  the  conduct  of  an  oflicer,  who,  he  conceives, 
has  oppressed,  betrayed,  and  defrauded  him. 

I  do  not  consider  this  a  proper  occasion  to 
apeak  ftirther  on  this  subject,  except  to  remind 
the  House  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Simon  Mussina, 
the  active  prosecutor  in  this  proceeding,  is  con- 
tending for  the  recovery  of  his  own  direct  and 
personal  rights  i)i  the  Cavazos  suit— he  being 
jointly  interested  in  the  land  transactions  of  his 
Brother,  agaihst  whom  the  judgment  was  ren- 
dered; and  that  the  right  and  integrity  of  the  pro- 
ceeding he  has  instituted,  for  the  punishment  of 
the  accused,  has  nevet'  before  been  questioned  by 
aay  authority  to  which  he  has  submitted  hia  case. 
On  the  contrary,  he  has  received  the  indorsement 


of  public  bodies,  and  a  sovereign  State  has  united 
in  the  prayer  of  his  petition;  and  he  stands  to-day 
asking  for  justice,  and  justice  only,  from  this  hon- 
orable body. 

In  the  proceedings  of  the  Thirty-Fourth  Con- 
gress it  will  be  seen  that  the  matter  of  Mr.  Mus- 
sina'a^ petition  was  made  the  subject  of  carefbl 
investigation,  and  that  the  Judiciary  Committee 
unanimously  indorsed  it,  granted  his  prayer^nd 
recommended  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Wat- 
rous, for  high  crimes  committed  in  a  series  of  acta 
of  oppression  and  fraud  upon  the  memorialists. 
The  report  of  this  committee  slates  in  a  conve- 
nient and  concise  form  the  leading  facts  of  Mr. 
Mussina's  case,  and  I  will  read  from  it  as  tar  aa 
it  roav  be  necessary  for  the  House  to  be  informed 
in  this  particular,  in  order  to  show  the  grounds 
upon  which  the  committee  unanimously  determ- 
ined the  guilt  of  Judge  Watrous  and  recom- 
mended his  impeachment: 

<<  Tlie  committee  would,  however,  Mate  very  briefly  the 
aubtunce  of  the  chaifoi  In  the  petitioni,  and  the  |rouod« 
npon  which  they  have  remlved  to  repoit  the  retoloUon. 
The  eomplainu  ia  tlie  petition  of  Jacob  MoniBa,  amoaf 
oUieri,  are  founded  upon  the  condact  ofimifa  Watrooi  ia 
a  chancery  lult  litigated  in  hii  court  at  Oaivedon,  and 
cliarae  that  throughout  the  progren  of  the  cue  he  wai  op- 
prei)>lve  and  paitial ;  that  he  emtiely  dirngarded  (he  well- 
aubiiilicd  rules  of  law  and  evideace,  and  the  rt^ti  of  U(i- 
gant«. 
"The  cante  at  fialveaton  wai  commenced  by  one  Cavaso* 
tt  ml.  w.  Btillman  el  al.,  January  19,  1649,  for  partitioa 
aiaong  Ibaeomplainanu,  ofa  large  tract  of  land  ii(aated  upon 
(be  eai(  bank  of  the  Bio  Grande,  which  included  the  town 
of  Brownsville,  and  to  quiet  (he  tide  a«  agalnnt  the  claim  of 
(hose  who  were  made  duftndanta.  The  bill  of  complaint, 
which  was  verifled  by  oath,  alleged  thai  all  the  complain- 
anu  were  citizens  of  (ha  Republic  of  Itfexico,  and  that  the 
defendants  werecitixensof  the  Sute  of  Texas,  which  gave 
(he  Uni(ed  States  court  Jurisdiction.  Afterwards  it  appear- 
ing upon  the  report  ofa  master  that  the  suit  was  commenced 
by  the  attorneys  ofCavaao*  without  (he  knowledge  or  eon- 
sent  of  several  of  the  parties  made  complainants,  the  court 
ordered  that  the  names  of  such  parties  should  be  struck 
out  of  the  complaint  and  inserted  as  defendants,  upon  the 
agreomen(  of  an  B(tomey  to  appear  (br  them,  and  place 
upon  the  record  in  the  cause,  by  answer  or  e(herwiae,  such 
Bvermen(a  as  would  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court, 
by  acknowl«dging  themselves  citizens  of  the  State  of  Tex- 
as, although  it  was  well  known  (ha(  they  were  citizens  of 
Mexico,  and  not  of  the  Sute  of  Texas,  and.  although  no 
notice  had  been  given  (o  any  of  such  fairties,  one  of  (hem 
being  a  married  woman,  and  ano(her  an  innin(  fhr  whom 
no  guardian  ad  littm  was  ever  appoin(ed,  (heir  righ(s  were 
llnatly  passed  upon  in  (he  decree  in  (his  irregular  manner. 
These  iBcta  might  not  have  been  cause  of  serious  complaint, 
if  the  iudge,  in  the  subsequent  proceedings,  had  shown  a 
disposition  to  administer  Justice  with  an  even  hand. 

"  The  petitioner,  Jacob  Jtfussina,wa8  not  made  a  defend- 
ant In  the  cause  until  after  these  proceedings  were  had ;  but 
his  interest  afterwards,  appearing  by  (he  alfldavit  of  one  of 
(he  delkndan(a,aI(hongh  hi)  was  not  a  citizen  of  Texas,  but 
a  citizen  of  Louisiana,  he  was  made  a  defendant  by  an 
amendment  to  (he  bill  of  compiain(.  The  comini((ee  find 
(ha(,  during  (he  progiess  of  the  cause,  the  well-esublished 
rules  of  law  and  evidence  were  repeatedly  disregarded  by 
(he  court,  and  in  all  cases  In  (kvorof  (be  complarnan(sand 
against  the  defendants.  The  testimony  of  Interested  wit- 
nesses was  allowed  against  the  objection  of  the  defendants ; 
and  the  deposition  ond  sflldavlts  of  an  attorney  for  the  com- 
plainants were  received  in  evidence,  against  the  objection 
of  the  defendanu,  altlmugh  it  was  shown  by  his  own  testi- 
mony that  he  was  prosecuting  (he  suK  under  an  agreemen( 
of  champerty— that  is,  |ie  was  to  share  in  the  proceeds  of 
the  tale  of  (he  property  after  it  should  have  been  recovered 
and  sold.' 

"  The  court  allowed  the  use  of  translations  of  importan( 
documents  tending  to  prove  the  title  of  tlie  complainants  to 
the  property  in  question,  which  had  been  made  out  by  the 


i^ 


taaa  ■uorniiy  wbo  wai  by  urcement  to  ilinre  in  ihe  oroflu 
of  iha  mil  when  lite  land  anuuld  b«  recovered  ana  ioM, 
wlUioM  acting  nndcr  the  MucUoua  efan  oatU.and  wIUmmii 
Um  uanilaliotti  bcln(  verllcd  bjr  oaib.  And  ui«  court  alio 
overruled  Um  obicciion  of  tiie  defendantt  to  Ihe  IM«  of  lueh 
iraMlailoot.  There  i«  inine  record  tenUinony  befbre  llic 
comnltiee  tbowtni  thai  theie  trandaiione  were  false  in 
«onM  reepeeli,  wiUioul  ihowlng  in  whalreipecu  lliey  were 
falw.  ! 

"  A  ilioft  lime  previous  to  the  January  term  of  Ihe  dia- ; 
trict  court  oTOalveelon  for  1859,  Judge  Walroui  cauied  h  ; 
to  be  undentond  by  nimorf ,  and  by  declaration*  given  out  i 
by  Mmifir  ^bUcly,  ibal  he  would  not  hold  a  January  term 
ai  OalveaUM,  whlvb  came  lo  Uia  knowledgu  of  Jacob  Mui- 
•ina  and  prevenied  hia  attending  that  court,  and  taking 
(ueh  atepa  aa  might  be  neceiiary  to  lecure  the  benefit*  of 
an  appeal.    But  notwilhilanding  hi*  declaration*,  he  did 
iiold  the  January  term  alOalveeloa,  and  rendered  a  decree 
in  the  (aid  chancery  cauie,  declaring  the  tiUe  of  IMutaina  ^ 
10  the  property  in  controveny  to  be  null  and  void,  and  en- 1 
Joining  liim  forever  from  further  a**erting  any  claim  lo  the  i 
•amr,  remarking  ai  the  time  thai  be  had  seen  or  converted 
with  the  parties  at  Aaalin,  and  that  thev  bad  eonieirted  | 
10,  or  were  latiilled  with,  the  decree :  which  declaration 
of  tlie  Judge  prevented  an  aiiorney  of  Jacob  MuMlna,  then 
happening  to  bu  in  court,  from  taking  Ihe  necessary  elep* 
for  an  appeal ;  whereas  in  truth  and  in  Ihct,  Judge  Wal- 
roui had  not  seen  or  conversed  with  Jacob  Muisins 
Oalvetton,  or  Msewhete,  or  any  person  representing  his 
interest;  and  the  pretense  thai  be  iMd  consented  lothe 
decree,  or  wu  laiisfled  with  it,  waa  without  foundation  nr 
excuse.    Five  of  the  eight  complainants,  wbo  were  male- 
rial  and  necessary  ptfrlies,  had  been  made  defendants  in  an 
eariy  stage  of  the  cause,  and  without  any  answer  or  alle- 
gations on  their  nan,  eioeptlwo  ofthem,  a  decree  was  nn- 
dered  in  iheir  favor  against  Mussina ;  and  lo  perfect  an 
appeal,  a  notice  ihoula  have  been  given  in  open  court,  at 
the  lime  the  decree  waa  rendered,  ur,  in  case  of  appeal  be- 
ing taken  afterwards,  by  the  provisions  of  the  twenty-aecond 
section  of  tlie  Judiciary  act,  the  appellees  muatbe  served 
witii  a  citation  of  appeal ;  and  as  one  of  the  parties  was  a 
married  woman,  andanotber  an  infant,  all  ofthem  residing 
out  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  our  courts,  being  citizens  of  Mex- 
ico, it  became  very  diffleuit,  if  uol  impossible,  to  perfect 
an  appeal  after  the  court  had  adjourned. 

"  It  further  apiiean,  that  afterwards,  on  or  about  Ihe  — 
day  of  January,  1854,  Judge  Watrous,upon  the  application 
of  the  solicitor  of  the  complainant*  In  Ihe  chancery  cause 
at  Oalveston,  cited  said  Jacob  Mussina  lo  appear  la  court 
at  that  place  to  answer  for  a  contempt  of  court,  in  contin- 
uing to  assert  Uiat  be  had  an  interest  in  the  said  property  at 
Brown«ville.  The  acts  charged  to  be  In  contempt  of  court 
were,  first,  that  he  had  commenced  and  prosecuted  a  suit 
in  Ihe  city  of  New  Orleans,  against  some  of  Uie  panic*  and 
tolicilors  in  the  said  case  of  Cavaso*  el  «<•  e>.  SUIIman  e( 
at.,  for  conspiracy,  in  the  proceeding*  in  said  case,  to  de- 
fhiud  and  cheat,  under  color  of  legal  proceedings,  the  said 
Jacob  Mussina  out  of  bis  interest  in  the  propeny  at  Browns- 
ville. The  suit  at  New  Orleans  waa  commenced  Ihe  year 
before  Ihe  decree  was  pronounced  at  Oalveston.  That  de- 
cree did  not  notice  the  suit  at  New  Orleans,  or  in  any  man- 
ner enjoin  it.  The  other  act  charged  to  be  a  contempt,  v^^os 
the  filing  of  nrotesla  by  said  Mussina  in  the  office  o*'  t^m 
Secretary  of  War  and  IntheQuanermasierGeneral's'  -n-'«, 
at  Washington,  against  the  payment  of  money  b,  ■.w' 
Depanment  to  the  succeasftil  litigants  for  the  rent  of  lii  - 
Brownsville  properly.  The  court  declared  Jacob  Mussln 
to  be  In  contempt,  and  issued  an  order  for  his  arrest ;  and 
because  he  could  not  be  found,  not  being  a  citizen  of  Texas, 
hut  a  resident  and  citizen  of  Louisiana,  an  order  was  issued 
lo  sequestrate  all  bis  properly.  The  comniillee  deem  the 
proceedings  for  a  contempt  lo  have  been  irregular,  unjust, 
and  illegal,  and,  taken  in  connection  will  the  previous  pro- 
ceedings and  rendition  of  the  decree,  oppressive  and  tyran- 
nical. I 

'■  In  Ihe  case  of  Cavazos  tt  al.  v$.  SiJIIman  et  al.,  the  | 
record  affords  sufnclani  evidence  to  satisfy  the  committee  i 
that  there  waa  collusion  between  the  solicitors  for  the  com- 1 
plalnants  and  a  pan  of  the  solicitors  for  the  defendants,  and ' 
that  a  pan  of  the  defendants,  or  one  of  them  at  least,  Jacob 
Mussina,  was  defVaHded  and  betrayed  by  such  collusion. 
They  would  further  state,  that  there  is  evidence  to  satisfy  i 
them  that  a  port  of  the  defendants  were  concerned  in  the  i 
conspihicy,  and  that  Ihe  Judge  of  the  court  knew  of  the  I 
collusion  during  the  pendency  of  the  suit,  and  that  he  al-  > 


luded  to  a  conversation  beiwerii  bimtelf  and  one  of  Ihe  d«- 
ftindanto'  ■nliellors,  who  waa  cnnecnNd  hi  Um  eoilusioa, 
when  be  remarked  Umi  Um  dafeadMit*  WUM  — itrtid  wMh 
'  lie  decree.  The  defemUnl  M  iisahia  cmmmmoI  •  mU  M 
(ialvi^ston,  agaliul  the  other  delkadani*  uil  lolicilon  In 
the  cnnw,  on  the  ISlh  of  March,  1890,  ftwanell  eoii*pirMy  ( 
but  owing  to  contiRMl  olMiaele*  and  dalufi  ia  Um  pwat 
cution  ofihaianit  atUalvesion,  Maeaiat  aAeiWMlai  h«i 
before  Uia  readitiou  of  ib«  decree  !•  Um  ekaaoanr  cauaa, 
commenced  a  lull  against  Ihe  aama  panie*  Ibr  toe  sama 
cause  at  New  Orleans,  and  Judge  Walrooaafterwaid*  de- 
clared laid  Moasiii*  to  be  In  eonumpi  tot  hnviof  com- 
menced and  ptiwecHied  ibia  suit  al  Naw  Oflaans,  and  «r. 
dered  him  to  b«  Imprlaoned,  and  beeanaa  ha  could  not  ba 
found  ill  the  Bute  of  Tezaa,  ordered  bis  property  to  be  *e- 
qucsiraled,  as  above  stated. 

"  The  committoa  havaaxUDtnodnuniatowtaearda, con- 
sisting of  piaadinp,  ordar*  of  court,  afldavil*,  and  depoal- 
tion*;  and,  after  a  paUentand  laborious  raseareta,  they  have 
reluclantiy  come  lo  Ihe  conelusion  Ibat  Ihe  coMluet  of 
Judge  Wairau*,  In  the  caaes  abova  reiened  io,  canaM  l« 
expTained  without  euppoaing  that  he  waaacMUedbyoihar 
ihan  upright  and  Jnai  motivo*  i  thai  in  hi*  diaragard  of  ihe 
w«ll-e*laMl*bed  rule*  of  law  and  evidonee,  b«  basuul  In 
Jeopardy  and  aaerlflced  the  rtebta  of  Htlgaat*.  and  in  ac- 
quiring a  title  lo  property  in  Hiigatioii,arbeld  by  advone 
po«sesilon,  be  baa  given  Juai  eau*a  of  alnmiiaifca  eitlBaM 
of  Taxu,  for  Ihe  aafety  of  private  riabu  and  property,  and 
of  thehr  public  domain,  and  bu  deoarred  thein  from  Uie 
rlghu  of  an  impanial  trial  in  the  Federal  court*  of  their  own 
diitriet  In  view  of  the  above-rarliad  Iheis,  and  Iha  con- 
cluaions  of  the  committee,  ibey  report  Um  avideaoe,  and 
the  following  resol  ution : 

•'  RtMlfi,  That  John  C.  Wairaus,  United  Bute*  district 
Judge  Ibr  the  di*irict  of  Texas,  ba  Impeached  of  high  erime* 
anamlademeanon." 

.  It  ii  eapecialljr  to  be  remembered ,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  thia  report  ii  baaed  entireljr  on  record  teati- 
mony.  I  deaire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Houae 
eapecially  and  emphatically  to  thia  fact,  and  to 
the  further  and  crowning  fact  that  theoe  recorda 
of  Judge  Watroua'a  court,  on  which  all  the  mate- 
rial chargea  of  Muiaina  were  baaed,  were  before 
the  committee  of  the  present  Congreaa,  aa  like- 
wise the  parties  who  made  them,  and  no  attempt 
was  made  to  impeach  any  one  of  them. 

These  same  accusing  recorda,  on  which  the 
Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Thirty-Fourth  Con- 
gress came  to  a  unanimoua  judgment  of  the  guilt 
of  Jiidge  Watrous,  are  before  the  House  to-day 
as  witnesses  for  his  impeachment. 

It  is  worthy  of  the  observation  of  the  House  that 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  last  Congress, 
to  which  I  have  just  referred,  does  not  partake  of 
the  character  of  mere  assertions  or  argument  onl  v, 
but  rests  upon  a  most  careful  exanunation  of  tne 
evidence. 

We  find,  in  the  abstract  they  have  annexed  to 
their  report,  which  I  make  a  part  of  my  remarks, 
the  date  assigned  and  the  page  given  for  every 
material  item  of  evidence  in  the  case.  (See  Ap- 
pendix No.  1.) 

I  would  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
approval  which  four  members  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  this  Congress  have  given  to  the 
judgment  so  deliberately  made  of  Judge  Wat- 
roua's  official  misconduct  towards  Mussina  by 
the  former  committee  of  the  Thirty-Fourth  Con- 
gress. This  approval  comes  to  us  with  such 
authority  and  with  such  extraordinary  evidences 
of  truth  as  to  constitute,  in  unbiased  minds,  a 
chain  of  evidence  that  leads  irresistibly  to  the 
conviction  of  the  guilt  of  Judge  Watroua. 

It  is  known  that  the  present  Judiciary  Com- 


-■  *:-^«,»awTt-*^^*"'  ■^'^-'^■-  • 


V>    JJ'.'^.Jl   ,■ 


'  >  *    n 


W^SSatSMlilii 


i' 


niltMal  ibalHt  Mftion  iDTeMic«i«d  tha  conduct 
ttJttift  WatrmM  with  Um  malMt  paU«ne«,an4 
with  Ml  •▼UwM  Mid  Mrneit  dMira  to  utrin  at  the 
tfuth.  For  Ire  noathi  thia  inrtitiniion  wu 
MMdiljr  puiWMdi  for  a  mat  part  of  this  time  the 
eonmiUM  wtra  in  dailjr  aauion  oMupying  in 
their  exanimtion  of  witneeiM  even  the  houra  of 
the  dajr  when  the  Houie  waa  eittinf. 
NocinaBMtaaoeawere  wanting,  nopaina  were 


ominad,  nothing  waa  denied,  to  inaare  a  full,  im 
pftrdal,  and  trathfbl  inTeatigation.  Evary  oppor- 
tunity ofezplanalion  and  deiiinae  waa  afforded  to 


Judge  Watraua.  He  waa  indulged  in  a  tedioue 
deftnae  by  tha  aommitteet  he  had  able  counael 
to  eonduet  the  inveallntiont  and  in  a  apirit  of 
liberality,  aa  I  think,  the  oonmittee  went  eo  far 
aa  to  reniae  to  allow  hia  witnaaaea  to  be  im- 


Thia,  I  wy«  ■i'l  *»  undue  liberality;  for  it  en- 
abled Judge  Watroua  to  make  a  defenae  firom  the 
teatimony  of  the  ofieere  of  hia  eourt,  and  alao  the 
partnera  in  hia  iniquitv.  But  notwithatanding  all 
theae  citeumatancea  or  advantajj[e  on  the  part  of 
the  judge,  and  after  the  moat  patient  and  compre- 
henaive  examination  of  all  the  facta,  no  matter 
how  remote,  in  hia  faror,  we  find,  air,  a  portion  of 
the  committee  affirming,  in  the  atrongeat  and  most 
unreaerTed  termB,the  aame  judgment  of  hia  guilt 
that  had  lirat  been  pronounced,  on  the  aame 
charge  which  Muaaina  had  aubmitted  for  inTea- 
tigation in  the  Thirty-Fourth  Oon^^reae. 

That  jttd|;ment  of  cenaureandeTidence  of  guilt 
ia  affirmed  in  the  following  clear  and  decided  lan- 
guage. Summing  up  the  proofh  in  the  caae,  they 
say: 

"  Bveiy  lrr«cttlar  or  wron|fUI  deetiinn  of  the  Judje  wu 
in  tkfot  of  the  compUiBMU  and  aninit  the  derendant, 
Munlaa,  and  dioaa  oeeapjrlng  a  ilmUar  poiition,  and  wai 
to  Uieir  particular  injury.  By  nainttinlni  the  urocaedinf 
•I  one  ruhtAilly  brought  on  the  chancery  iTde  of  the  court, 
thaM  denndaati  were  illepliy  deprivea  of  their  right  to  ■ 
trial  by  a  Jury,  and  were  compelled  to  aubmit  to  an  adjudi- 
eaUoB  apoD  tboir  righu  to  the  property  in  auch  a  manner 
that  the  deeiiion  would  be  llnal  and  eonciniive  ai  to  the  title 
of  the  property,  initeadofone  upon  the  right  of  poageuion, 
which  would  at  enee  have  been  pronounced,  on  the  law 
aide  of  the  court,  in  an  action  of  ejectment.  By  maintain- 
lag  Jurladictioo  over  the  caie,  when  a  portion  of  the  de- 
fondanla  at  well  aa  the  plaintifl*  weraalieni,  these  defend- 
anta  were  deprived  of  their  rights  to  have  the  queitioni 
ihvoived  in  it  decided  by  the  courta  of  Teiai,  to  whoee  Ju- 
riidiclion  they  were  rightfblly  amenable,  and  whose  lawi 
were  to  govern  in  that  decision.  By  admitting  incompetent 
witnesses  to  testiQr,  their  rightt  were  atfected  by  evidence 
given  by  persona  who  had  an  interest  in  the  litigation  ad- 
verse to  theirs.  And,  Anally,  they  were  prevented  from 
having  the  deehrion  aninst  them  reviewed  in  the  appellate 
court  hy  the  Dtilare  of  the  Judge  to  perform  his  full  duty  to 
tliem  in  flicilitating  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  appeal,  given 
to  tliero  by  law,  fVom  motives  of  public  policy,  for  their  own 
private  advantage,  and  that,  too,  when  there  is  some  reason 
to  believe  that  ibe  decree  by  the  court  Is  not  in  conrormity 
with  the  principles  of  law,  as  recognized  in  Texas.  Buch 
a  coune  of  action,  continued  t '  .rough  the  whole  progress  of 
a  cause,  in  fhvor  of  some  of  t'  .e  parties  and  against  others, 
is,  to  our  minds,  conclusive  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a 
purpose,  on  tha  part  of  the  Judge,  to  fltvor  one  party,  or  set 
of  parties,  at  the  expense  and  to  the  injury  of  others,  which 
is  mconslstent  with  an  upright,  honest,  and  impartial  dis- 
charge of  the  Judicial  function.  And  this,  we  believe,  con  - 
stitutes  a  breach  of  the '  good  behavior*  upon  which,  by  the 
Constitution,  the  tenure  of  the  Judicial  office  is  made  to 
depend." 

A  51  to  that  portion  of  the  charge  asaigned  by 
r '       ina,  in  relation  to  the  judge's  prosecution  of 


him  for  alleged  contempt,  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee of  thie  Congreaa,  from  which  I  have  Joat 
read,  alao  aflrmi  the  former  inveetigation,  to  tha 
effect  that  the  action  of  the  judge  waa  tyrannical 
and  oppreaaive.  Thia  matter,  air,  of  unaathor- 
ited,  relatione,  and  wrongful  peraecution  of  a 
citiaen  for  alleged  judicial  contempt,  ia  no  liehl 
anbject  of  complaint.  It  muat  be  eonaidercd  tnat 
in  auch  a  caae  there  ie  no  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Courti  and  a  corrupt  and  malicioua  judge  may 
practice  hia  tyranniea  with  impunity,  under  dia- 
guiae  of  such  proceedinge  for  contempt  aa  were 
authorized  by  Judge  Watroua  in  the  caae  of  Mua- 
aina, unleaa  Congreaa,  aa  it  ia  now  invoked  to  do. 
shall  interfere  to  eatabliah  a  precedent  that  shall 
hereafter  check  judicial  tyranny. 

In  raferenaa  to  tha  aoiMaai^  aaae,  the  report 
already  referred  to  as  that  of  a  portion  or  the 
preaent  committee,  says: 

"  It  also  seams  clear,  when  thn  pleadinp  in  the  suit  in- 
stituted by  Mussina  against  Btlllman,  Balden  and  Ailing,  and 
Baaae  and  IIord,in  the  Iburlh  disuiet  court  of  New  Orleans, 
are  considered,  together  with  the  Judgment  rendered  in  it 
upon  the  vardiot  of  a  Jury,  and  tile  evidence  in  the  con- 
tempt case,  that  there  was  no  foundation  whatever  for  tha 
proeeeding  against  him  for  a  contempt,  and  that  the  action 
of  the  Judge  with  respect  to  it  was  unauUiorised  by  law, 
and  waa  intended  to  be  vexatious  and  oppressive.  How  any 
other  eoBciusion  can  be  arrived  at,  when  it  is  remembered 
Uiat  Uie  suit  in  New  Orleans  was  instituted  by  Mussina 
against  bis  co-deAndants  alone  and  their  counsel,  and  re- 
lated to  rights  growing  out  of  Uieir  own  transactions,  it  is 
not  easy  to  conceive. " 

It  appeara  that  the  report  from  which  I  hare 
been  reading  ia  signed  by  the  honorable  membera 
from  PennayWania,  [Mr.  Chaphan,]  Wiaconain, 
[Mr.  BiLLiMGBUMT,')  Louisiana,  [Mr.TATLoa,] 
and  Alabama,  [Mr.  Hovitoh,]  gentlemen  diatin- 
guiahed  for  legal  learning  and  talents. 

In  addition  to  these  two  reports,  the  former 
made  to  the  Thirty-Fourth  Congress,  and  followed 
by  the  one  just  referred  to,  made  at  tlie  last  ses- 
sion, both  adjudging  the  accused  guilty  of  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors,  we  have  acopynf  tne 
reaolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  Texas,  adopted 
in  1848,  branding  Judge  Watrous  with  "  one  of 
the  most  stupendous  irauda  ever  practiced  upon 
any  country  or  any  people, "and  urgently  request- 
ing him  to  resign  his  office.  This  comes  to  us  as 
an  expression  of  the  voice  of  Texas  ten  years  ago. 
The  same  appeal  lingers  here  for  justice,  and 
the  resolution  still  stands  unrepealed  upon  the 
statute-books  of  the  State. 

I  will  read  the  resolutions: 

"  Whereas  it  is  believed  that  John  C.  Watrous,  Judge  of 
the  United  States  district  court  for  the  district  of  Texas, 
has,  while  seeking  that  important  position,  given  legal  opin- 
ions in  causes  and  questions  lobe  litigated  hereafter, in 
which  the  inieroats  of  individuals  and  ot  the  State  are  im- 
mensely involved,  whereby  it  is  believed  he  lias  disqualified 
the  court  in  which  he  presides  from  trying  such  questions 
and  causes,  thereby  rendering  it  necessary  to  transfer  an 
indefinite  and  unknown  number  of  suits  hereafter  to  be  com- 
menced, to  courts  out  of  the  State  for  trial ;  and  whereas  it 
is  also  believed  that  the  said  John  C.  Wntroiis  has,  while  in 
office,  aided  and  assisted  certain  individuals,  if  not  directly 
interested  himself,  in  an  attempt  to  fasten  U|ion  this  State 
one  of  the  must  stupendous  frauds  ever  practiced  upon  any 
country  or  any  people,  the  elfect  of  wliich  would  be  to  rob 
Texas  of  millions  of  acres  of  her  public  domain,  iier  only 
hope  or  resource  for  the  payment  of  her  public  debt;  and 
whereas  his  conduct  in  court  and  elsewhere,  In  derogation 
of  his  duty  as  a  Judge,  has  been  marked  by  such  prejudice 
and  injustice  towards  the  rights  of  the  State  and  divers  of 


.i^i-.tL'i^f^iJM  : 


m 


tM  cMmm,  m  lo  ilMW  ibM  b*  iloM  bm  Jwtwri  Ik*  Mgb 
■tailoa  h*  eee«Bt«  i  TiMMftM*,  _ 

••  RacTiMi  I .  Br  M  rtMiMri  »•  «U  £«|<iWar«  •/ iru  Itato 
•/  IVm,  TfeM  Mm  mM  Jafea  O.  Wmtmh  ha,  Md  k«  ti 
hwffcy.wriMiH.lii  MMUrgfilM  pmia  af  ilw  lUM,  lo 
railgB  hiao«e«ori«lfi  ofwM  Uaiud  Suum  eouit  tot  Ui« 
dMikt  oTTtiM. 

"  ■■o.  a.  Jk  M  yWOcr  HM«l»»t,  TIMI  ih*  Oarwam  (te- 
wafi  IIM  «M  Mm  C.  WaliDM,  aadw  Ike  Mtl  of  dM  •lala, 
aaafjr  af  Ika  fciaanlag  piaawbk  aa4  naoUiUoa i  alaa. a 
copy  to  aaeli  of  wu  Banaion  ud  BapmaaUUraa  la  ib« 
Coaima  of  lb*  Ualiad  Buui." 

I  read,  ahoi  the  rollowiof  resolution  puaed  by 
the  Senate  of  Texas,  Avgutt,  1856,  but  at  too 
late  a  period  of  the  eeaaion  to  aHow  of  ila  acTeral 
readings  in  the  House,  previous  to  the  a^joum- 
neni: 

"  Wfearaai  Ika  CooMinuioM  of  Ike  Vuiui  f  Waa  pravtda* 
lliat '  the  JudfM,  both  of  tbo  lupreme  and  lalkrior  coaiti, 
■hail  hold  thcur  olBcn  dartna  g»*4  Iwhnvior  i'  that  Jobs  C. 
WatroM  b*lD|  appoiolcd  Jimm  of  th«  l/niiad  Butw  dlMflct 
eowt  a*  iha  f  laH  of  Taiaa,  aafcaa  or  dariag  th*  ■oMbof 
May,  1841,  aad  iaMW  praaidkag  oivar  laU  co«ut  i  and  whar*^ 
at  aa  act  of  Cooarata  waa  puaad  requirina  taid  Watiout, 
lad|e,  to  reiida  in  hi*  diairlei,  ibcnby  msuai  Itnowa  that 
ha  waa  a  non-raildeni  and  atrangar  aawnt  tb«  peopi*  ovar 
wkom  ka  nrarided  aa  raah  Jadga,  aad  an  inpUad  eoadaai- 
aailaa  of  ait  oflaiti  behavior  t  and  auoi.tar  act  of  Coagiatt 
patted,  whiab  providad  for  Iha  btanchiiia  bit  court,  thereby 
fhowina  that  it  waa  inteaded  to  deprive  him,  u  Ihr  u  pot- 
tiMe  by  legitlaiion,  af  iba  aeaaa  aad  Ibcliitiaa  which  ha 
and  *ara 


proawlagaM 
rich  MaMelf 
try  i  aad  wkafvaa  ikc 


Ikan  and  Aara  patiatttd  of  aaeonplitlUna  bit  wicked  de- 
ti^,  aad  10  weaken  ika  aniawful  combtnationt  which  he 
liad  then  and  there  formed,  and  a  Joint  reiolution  patted 
the  Legitlatnre  of  the  Stale  of  Taiat,  enumeraiini  very 
aaany  taOelent  eanaea,  and  raquattina  taid  Watroaa  to  ra- 
tign  hit  taid  offlce,  yet  taid  Judge  holdt  on  to  bit  oAoa  with 
Ike  tenacity  of  a  convict  felon  boMing  to  life,  and  adding 
intuit  to  injury  done  the  country,  by  procuring  and  publltb- 
ing  a  eertifled  character,  obtained  by  him  Drom  the  erand 
Jwy of  kia  own  court;  and  wberaat  ebaigea  were  prenrred 
B^ati  Watroui  for  bia  oairageout  violalkm  of  iaw  aad  hit 
uniform  courte  of  bad  bebavtor,  and  that  taid  cLarget  have 
been  delayed  and  poitponed  by  the  contrivancet  of  taid 
Watrout,  aided  by  nit  compeen,  who,  after  defeating  in- 

a airy  into  hit  ofllcial  miiconduct,  bad  the  effrontery,  by  cer- 
fleata  lUtemeata,  to  undertake  lo  whitewath  a  cbaracler 
blackened  bv  deedt  of  crime ;  and  whereat  it  it  quite  gener- 
ally believed  that  in '  rich  coiu'in  hit  court,  a  party 't  tucceas 
depend!  altogether  upon  bit  emptoylng  thefttvoritetofiaid 
Judge  aa  the  party**  attomeyt,  and  thereby  lecure  the  taid 
Judge't  active  cooperation  in  making  up  the  cate,  hia 
boasted  control  ofhlt  Jury,  and  tlie  flnaltpeech  lo  taid  Jury, 
wherein  he  faili  not  to  uae  every  argument,  both  /kite  and 
tound,  at  occaiion  may  require,  to  obtain  the  verdict ;  and 
whereaa  mid  Judge  it  guilty  of  obtaining  and  attemptiog, 
by  contriving  and  carrying  on  a  made-up  tuit  in  hit  own 
court,  to  validate  in  the  tame  over  twelve  hundred  iVaud- 
ulent  land  certiflcatei,  claimed  by  hlmaelf  and  hit '  com- 
peen,' and  of  adatt — in  all  the  enormoua  amount  of  twen- 
ty-four million  three  hundred  and  thirty-one  thoutand  seven 
hundred  and  tixty-four  acrea— of  fraudulent  certificates, 
thereby  attempting  to  deprive  hIa  countryof  a  vast  domain, 
besides  canting  the  Btato  the  coat  of  additional  counsel  in 
defending  herself  against  such  enormout  preconcerted  spo- 
iiaUonsr  ^ui  whereat,  on  discovery  of  his  interest  in  said 
clas'  (>;  .:ertificates  being  made,  said  Judge  transferred  said 
suit  for  determination  to  the  United  States  court  in  another 
Slate,  after  shaping  the  case  and  influencing  that  court  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  obtain  his  desired  Judgment ;  and  where- 
at said  Judge,  since  his  appointment,  has  interested  him- 
self in  a  class  of  eleven-league  land  claims,  which  cIosb  of 
claims  cover  millions  of  acres  of  the  best  lands  of  the  Slate, 
generally  regarded  as  invalid,  end  his  vast  interest  in  sus- 
taining said  class  of  claims,  and  means  of  accomplishing 
Ills  purpose,  owing  to  his  station  and  influences  with  tbe 
nlBcials  and  Juries  of  his  court,  render  him  obnoxious  and 
dangerous  to  tlie  general  welfhre  of  the  people ;  and  where- 
as it  is  believed  by  very  many  good  citizens  that  said  VVal- 
rous,  in  connection  with  one  Thomas  League,  and  ntli«r 
'  compeers,'  are  directly  or  indirectly  interested  in  most  of 
the  important  suits  brought  in  his  court ;  and  whereas  it  is 
believed  that  said  Watrous  is  now  in  Mexico,  engaged  in 


*f  thai  eiaat  of  lead  aiataa,  ki  order  w  Mi- 
•>  al  Ik*  ennM*  of  kl*  eo«»- 
aad  <k«lk^*r  taid  Wainw 
a*a  wbaily  aaagaatMta  la  Ik*  kN*(*«t  aad  Ibeitafi  *r  *a 
pa*s>t  mm  wkoi  k*  *>  dltgia*ilkH>  fuMu  i  sad  wk*»a- 
aa  Ik*  period  of  kia  adaUafiuaitoa  fca*  h**«  ■Mik*d  by  a 


r*«wtt*d,  aad  tmi  Waaaiaia  ar*  laauaeMd,  la  at*  *v*r|  I*- 
gufanaia  meoaa  la  ikali  power  to  procai*  ut*  nbovh  of 
taM  Joka  O.  Wauow  ftoa  taid  odto*." 

I  vish  the  House  moat  serionsljr  to  coi)«ider 
hetherthisarravof 
roua,  pronouncea  in  I 


whether  this  arraf  of  verdicts  aninat  Judfe  W at- 
in  the  most  deliberate  manner. 


and  under  the  moat  imposing  eirenmslances^  bj 

Rublie  bodies,  does  not  peremptorilT  call  for  a 
ill  investifatton  of  the  ease  bjr  refufar  and  ftnal 
trial  at  the  bar  ot  the  Senatii.  It  will  be  rtcol- 
leelad  also  that  a  reeolution  ot  the  Taxaa  Lagis- 
latura  was  pressnted  at  the  last  session,  request- 
ing this  honorable  body  to  inTeatigate  the  omcial 
misconduct  of  Judge  Watrous. 

Sir,  in  arriving  at  the  conclnaion  that  the  inter- 
ests of  public  justice  and  the  peeuliar  dutf  of  the 
House,  in  aproceeding  of  tnis  nature,  require 
that  Judge  Watrous  should  be  committed  for  trial 
before  the  Senate  of  the  United  Sutes,  I  have  not 
neglected  to  examine  all  the  defenses  and  evi- 
dence urged  in  his  behalf.  I  have  sought  to  do 
full  and  impartial  Justice  to  the  accused,  to  the 
extent  of  my  ability  to  Judge  between  truth  and 
falsehood,  right  and  wrong.  I  have  not  omitted 
to  examine  the  report  emanating  from  a  minority 
of  the  committee  and  made  in  his  defense,  and 
which  ia  indorsed  by  my  colleague,  [Mr.  Clakk,] 
a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  who  has 
urged  the  exculpation  of  the  Judge  in  a  forcible 
speech. 

I  examined  that  report,  sir,  with  some  anxiety 
to  discover  in  it  some  ground,  some  recital  of 
evidence,  or  some  circumstance  to  excuse  Judge 
Watrous,  or  to  justify  a  charitable  doubt,  which 
I  should  have  been  glad  to  entertain,  of  his  guilt. 
But  I  found  that  it  amounted  to  nothing  more 
than  a  broad  assertion  of  the  judge's  innocence, 
slighting  the  evidence,  and  even  failing,  on  its 
own  showing,  to  examine  into  a  portion  of  the 
charges. 

I  would  direct  the  attention  of  the  House  to  an 
instance  of  omission  in  this  minority  report  to 
inquire  into  the  merit*  of  an  act  of  Judge  Wat- 
rous which  was  particularly  compiainea  of,  and 
which  was  strongly  censured  by  the  unanimous 
voice  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Thirty- 
Fourth  Congress  ana  by  a  portion  of  the  present 
committee.  This  instance  of  omission  may  well 
serve  to  illustrate  the  want  of  proper  consideration 
of  a  material  part  of  the  charge.  Referring  to  the 
process  of  contempt  issued  against  Mussina,  the 
signers  of  the  report  declare: 

"  If  it  hod  been  followed  by  actual  orrett  of  perton  or 
sequestration  of  property,  the  undersigned,  out  of  tender 
regard  for  the  rights  of  the  citicen,  might  be  disposed  to 
inquire  into  its  merits  with  care." 

What  a  strange  avowal  is  this  to  make  !  The 
merits  of  the  contempt  cose  have  not  been  inquired 
into  with  care,  because  the  executive  officer  of 
Judge  Watrous 's  court  failed  to  capture  the  victim 


#1 


m-'-  '••  ■ 


SBSffWif  niV„ybi,  I    -^ 


-*  *♦  .  t'*;^  .  V  -•»■**  —t..  «,^«. , 


B 


ui  datpoil  him  of  Ilia  proportjr.  Wu  it  lew  un- 
iMM,  l«M  uBtolhoriMd  by  few,  Um  eriminal  in 
iIm  J«4(*  to  iMHM  wriu  of  amM  Mi4  MqMslntiun 
from  tbt  Ami  llwt  thtj  happenad  to  b«  nturnad 
■matiaiadf  Hia  oAnaa  waa  tha  aama,  whether 
tkavritaaaeoaipliahadhiaobJaeUorBot.  Hevio- 
ktad  law,  aboaad  hia  power,  and  proatltatad  hia 
«o«ft  to  privata  malice  and  enpiditvs  and  forthia, 
it  mifht  be  auppoaed,  a  Federal  fadfe  would  be 
held  anawerable  to  tha  offended  and  outraged  lawa 
of  hia  eoantrjr.  But  no  s  the  aignera  of  the  report 
weuM  not  aven  laqulrA  into  the  conduct  with  care, 
beeauaa  thafpoor  hunted  victim  of  Judicial  tTranny 
had  f&t,  for  the  time,  beyond  the  reach  of  hie  per- 
aeeaion.  It  moat  bo  remembered,  too,  that  theae 
tyranaieal  wriu  atill  hang  over  Jacob  Muiaina, 
who,  a  eitizen  and  reaident  of  New  Orleana,  can* 

?Si»*ees%«m^ 

the  execution  of  the  tyrannical  aentence  of  Judge 
Watrona. 

In  what  a  poaitioadoeathiaeireumatanea  place 
the  contempt  eaae,  ao  alightlr  and  careleaaly  dia- 
roiaaed  by  the  honorable  ffentlemen  who  have  aub- 
acribed  ine  Judgment  "  fliU  and  entire  acquittal" 
of  tho  aeeuaed  I  Here  ia  a  eitizen  of  Louiaiana  pre- 
vented from  entering  the  bordera  of  Texaa,  die- 
qualified  from  holding  property  there,  and  actually 
forbid  to  go  into  a  State  or  the  Union;  and  yet  we 
are  told  by  thia  branch  of  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee which  exculpate  Judge  Watroua,  tnat  '■  there 
ia  nothing  in  it  deaerving  the  attention  of  the 
Houae." 

I  do  not  conaider  it  neceaaary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
after  pointing  out  thia  instance  of  failure  of  duty 
and  diaregaid  of  right  and  juatice  in  the  minority 
report,  to  eatabliah  by  further  and  detailed  criti- 
ciam  ita  unreliability.  I  do  not  conaider  it  necea- 
aary to  indicate  further  the  abaence  of  a  full  and 
proper eonaiderationofthepointa involved.  They 
are  aufficiently  obvioua  ttom  the  judgment  and 
temper  manifeated  inexcuaing  and  protecting  the 
tyranny  of  Judge  Watroua,  oecauie  hia  malice 
had  fallen  aomewhat  abort  of  ita  aim. 

But,  air,  before  diamiiaing  thia  report,  I  cannot 
refrain  flrom  offering  aome  general  remarks  on  the 
viaionary  auggeationa  it  makea,  that  "  there  it 
nothing  in  the  affair  but  the  reaentfulness  of  dis- 
appointed litiganta;"  meaning,  I  suppose,  Mus- 
sina and  Spencer,  who  had  preferrea  distinct  ac- 
cusationa  against  Judge  Watrous.  Sir,  the  idea 
is  simply  preposterous  that  private  citizens,  flrom 
mere  "  resenwilnese,"  should  subject  themselves 
to  years  of  toil  and  harassment,  and  to  an  enorm- 
ous expense,  in  order  to  bring  a  judge  to  a  trial 
if  it  could  only  result  in  his  full  and  entire  ac- 
quittal !  It  is  entirely  improbable  that  any  mnn 
of  common  prudence  would,  merely  to  gratify  bad 
passions,  undertake  the  impeachment  of  ajudge, 
and  follow  it  up  through  all  the  tedium,  difficulty, 
odium,  and  expense,  that  he  must  necessarily  en- 
counter in  bringing  him  to  the  high  judicature  of 
the  United  States  Senate,  with  a  conviction  that 
an  acquittal  must  eventually  be  pronounced  in 
favor  of  the  accused. 

It  should  be  considered  to  what  pains  and  haz- 
ards a  party  subjects  himself  in  taking  ground 


against  a  United  Suua  judge  in  aeeking  hia  im- 
peachment if  thia  judM  ahould  be  really  inno- 
eant.  Cbargea  of  Juoiaial  aormption  art  Rot 
likely  to  be  nude,  at  least  not  likely  to  be  fbl- 
lowed  up  with  real  zeal,  regardleaa  of  time  and 
axpenaa,  and  through  all  the  difleultiea  thai  the 
official  and  hia  aurroundinga  amy  threw  in  the 
path  of  Juatice,  merely  fW>m  penoaal  apiu,  and 
without  any  foundation  in  faet.  I  think  that  it  ia 
quite  improbable  that  ajudge  could  be  peraecuted 
to  this  extent  by  reaentnil  auilors  in  hia  eourtt  and 
I  may  say  fbruer,  that  it  ia  not  probable  auch  a 
motive  or  private  malice  could  originate  a  pro- 
ceeding againat  Judge  Watrous,  the  truth  and 
Justice  of  which  have  oecn  affirmed  in  moat  of  the 
preliminary  invuatigationa  of  the  ease  made  by 
public  authority.  , 

.XiMM-teveattoBtlona  iMve  covered  the  whole 
ground  of  tha  judge 'a  official  miaoonduet,  and  not 
only  on  chargea  to  which  I  ha  ve  referred  in  these  re- 
marks, but  in  numerouaand  multifhrious  chargea 
of  other  acta  of  Judicial  corruption  he  ia  deemed 
guilty,  and  in  conaequence  of  which  he  haa  be- 
come repalsive  to  the  people  of  his  district,  who 
now,  in  conjunct'  ■n  with  the  memorialists,  seek 
the  iuterposition  of  thia  honorable  body. 

The  limited  time  allowed  to  me  under  the  rule* 
of  the  House  for  thia  discussion,  does  not  permit 
me  to  enter  at  any  length  into  the  land  frauds 
and  land  apeculations  which  Judge  Watroua  ia 
charged  with. 

But  centlemen  who  have  preceded  me  in  thia 
debate  nave  aufficiently  informed  the  House  of 
the  material  facto  on  which  the  charee  of  Eliphaa 
Spencer  ia  preferred  in  accusing  the  judge  of^ cor- 
ruptly lending  his  court  to  sustain  his  own  title 
to  a  grant  of  land,  and  of  complicity  in  the  pro- 
curement of  an  alleced  foreed  power  of  attorney, 
upon  which  his  title  wholly  depends.  I  cannot 
now  do  more,  for  want  of  time,  than  to  refer 
generally  to  these  important  and  apparently  sus- 
tained charges,  and  to  invite  a  careful  attention 
to  the  majority  report  of  the  committee  on  this 
important  point. 

1  would  invite  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
character  of  the  testimony  by  which  it  has  been 
sought  to  absolve  Judge  Watrous.  It  appears 
that  there  were  brought  nere  a  number  of  friendly 
and  interested  witnesses  to  give  evidence  in  favor 
of  Judge  Watrous,  consisting  of  the  officers  of 
his  court,  Love,  Cleveland,  Jones,  Shearer,  his 
agent,JohnTreanor,and  of  his  partners  in  alleged 
land  speculations.  League,  Lapsley,  Frow,  and 
others.  The  Judiciary  Committee  refused  toollow 
these  witnesses  to  be  impeached,  but  I  beg  the 
House  to  examine  their  testimony  with  just  sus- 
picion. Numerous  contradictions  appear.  You 
will  see  evidence  of  collusion;  you  will  notice 
Judge  Watrous  refreshing  the  recollections  of 
these  witnesses,  (see  Appendix  No.  3,)  and  the 
variance  in  their  testimony  from  day  to  day,  to 
suit  his  case.  You  can  then  give  proper  credit  to 
men  naturally  prejudiced  in  nivor  of  the  accused 
and  interested  m  his  crimes. 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  conclusion  let  me  indulge  the 
hope  that  this  House  will  not  hesitate  to  execute 
the  high  duty  it  owes  to  the  country  in  subjecting 


••'.^-^<^l;5■^:^■^■*"^-•".:*   -.•- 


■*■  m  .!>«« 


«^««>»tN>ii>^wf«ww>i^-i  ■'it^i^mi 


"S«*iw»5^ 


I  to  the 
been 


to  trki  bafor*  th*  Sanato  of  Ik*  Uniud  SutM  •  j 
jodc*  who  aumia  Man  «■  ahaffid  vith  hifh  • 
crimMuid  aMMMWwn,  which  Immii  th«  hiih 
character  of,  and  our  respect  for,  the  bench .  Thle ; 
inpeachment  i«  due  to  the  dignity  and  purity  of 
juoicial  poeition,  to  the  people  or  Teiaa— to  the  | 
memoriaUet  whoae  right*  aave  been  trampled  j 
upon,  and  to  the  eountry;  and  moro  than  all|  it  ia ; 
due  to  the  aeeuaed  that  he  ahonld  Tindieate  himaelf  i 
before  the  high  court  of  impeachment,  that  if  in- 1 
nocant  he  may  be  aequittea.  Until  that  is  done, ; 
his  vseAilness  as  a  Judge  is  gone,  his  honor  tar-  i 
nished,  and  his  integrilr  impeached. 

The  House  may  reflise  to  put  him  upon  hie  | 
trial,  but  it  cannot  obliterate  the  reeora  of  his 
alleged  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  aor  remote  the 
stigma  under  which  he  rests;  nor  will  sueh  arota 
restore  the  eonlldenee  of  tbe  people  of  his  own 
district  or  the  country. 

[APFBNOU  No.  1. 

•tMracI  •/iMMaMMi  r^/krralto  in  tttptft  •/  CtmmMf  •/ 

U*  AMy- AmM  OMfrwt. 

In  the  Cansoa  eaae,  rail  ww  iBMiiatad  Januarr  19, 1849, 
by  B.  AllM  uA  WUItiun  O.  Halt,  loUeiion,  elalmlnfl  to 
reprcMni  aldit  clttsaiia  of  Maiico,  igainn  eitlMiw  of  Teiaa, 
Ibu  |l*liig  tta«  nnltad  8uum  eourti  Juriadlction,  (p.  15.) 

Motloni  10  diMilM  the  Mil  of  eomplaiiit  aa  to  flv*  of  tba 
eomplainanu,  aa  having  baaa  Alad  ay  tha  tald  Allen  and 
Hale  wlUioui  authority,  (p.  3S.) 

Motion  to  dlimiM,  rararied  to  a  nuw tar  in  chancery,  who, 
after  ciUng  and  hearing  the  partiei,  reponed  that  no  author- 
ity to  eommanea  tha  iolt  on  the  part  of  five  of  Uie  com- 
plalaantt  had  baan  <hown,  (p.  37.) 

Tha  moUon  (o  dlimlii  ottenilbly  luiialned,  but  In  effect 
only  10  (hr  aa  to  atrike  the  namea  of  meli  five  eomplainania, 
awom  ciilseM  of  Mexico,  <Vom  the  bill  of  comptalnt.  ana 
without  any  motion,  leave  waa  granted  to  the  remaining 
Uirea  complalnanta  to  amend  tha  bill,  by  making  deftndanta 
tha  laid  partiea  thua  tiricken  (him  the  blllj  nnd  without 
any  pmcen  or  notice  to  them,  it  la  aaierad  of  record  by  the 
court,  in  the  lama  entry,  that  the  lald  paniea  appearing  In 
open  court,  by  an  attorney  in  (hct,  did  agree  to  plaee  upon 
the  record,  by  anawer  or  otherwiae,  an  acknowledgment 
that  they  were  clUaena  of  the  Suue  of  Tezaa,  to  give  tko 
court  Juriidictlon,  (p.  40.)  One  of  tha  partlee,  Ramon 
Lafon,  wa«  an  Infant,  and  another,  Angela  Garcia  de  Tar- 
nava,  a  manied  woman ;  neither  eouM  make  a  binding 
agreement,  even  in  open  court,  (p.  93.)  Tbe  (bllowing  li 
tbe  order  referred  to : 

<<  Own—Jvau  30,  t849. 

"RAruAiLGAaciACAVACoaandotiMra  i 

tw.  i 

"  CRARLae  Btillmam  and  otben.       ) 

"  Upon  conrideration  of  the  motion  made  by  Eliiba  Baaie 
and  Robert  H.  Hord,  couniel  fi>r  Don  OonitantinoTar- 
nava,  Dolta  Angela  Garcia  Lalbn  de  Tamava,  hU  wife, 
Don  Ramon  Lafon.  Don  Manuel  Priato,and  DolSa  Feliciana 
Goseaicoche  de  Tigerina,  made  paniei  complainant  In  the 
bill  of  complaint  in  thii  eauie ;  and  upon  fiirther  coneider- 
ation  of  the  leveral  affldavita  filed  In  reipect  to  the  lald 
motion  and  tbe  Mid  bill  of  complaint,  and  the  argument  of 
conniel,  it  ii  now  hereby  ordered  that  the  lald  motion  be 
luiulned,  and  that  tha  oUier  panlei  complainant  in  the 
•aid  bill  named  have  leave  to  amend  the  aaid  bill  by  making 
the  abovenamed  partiea  complainant  deffcndanta  to  the 
■aid  bill ;  and  they,  the  said  partiei,  io  to  be  made  de- 
Ibndania,  now  appearing  by  R.  H.  Hord,  their  attorney  in 
fkct,  in  open  court,  do  agree  that,  being  lo  made  partiei  de- 
fendant, they  will  place  upon  the  record  in  thii  canae,  by 
answer  or  otherwise,  luch  averments  aa  will  recognice  the 
Jurisdiction  of  this  court,  by  acknowledging  themselves 
citizens  of  this  State  for  the  purposes  of  tliis  action,  and 
the  costs  already  incurred  and  the  liabilities  accrued  to  be 
burnc  by  the  parlies  remaining  cnmplaioanti." 

Jacob  Mussina's  interest  appeared  by  affidavit  of  S.  A. 
Belden,  (p.  43. )  Bill  amended,  making  him,  as  a  citizen  of 
Texas,  a  party  defendant,  July  7, 1849,  (p .  49.)  Filed  his 
answer,  which  was  under  oath,  and  in  said  anawer  act  forth 
that  he  was  a  citizen  of  Louiaiana,  (p.  SO.) 


!•  aiaMa  all  peikagis  af 


ttaaa,  ethibHa.  uaMariMaafaay  aonaad  dasaripMea  wbai- 
aoavaf,  dapaadaat  Ibr  dieir  adaUaslon  apoa  Um  dapoeiUons 

orafiJMriliorMrilMaMO, r—  -  -     r..  . 

of  tfca  lamplaleaMi,  oa 
ovainlad,  (p.  118.) 

Cieaa-laiamiuoriaa  aad 
Ma  laHNal,  (as.  UB.  1] 


■la.,  one  of  Um  soUrlior* 
It  af  hla  laitraat,  (p.  119;) 


lorWHUaaiO.  Uaiaaa 


M  Ma  lawwal,  (pa.  UB,  M.!^  lat,)  wDaMlahaadnMa 
UM  ka  ImU  ■  dead  Mr  parlaf  dM  pNfeHv  la  IMaattaa.and 
thai  be  aad  Ma  paiiaar  waaa  t» riMfs  M fee pmiediar ika 
sale  ef  Uwareaaity  wlwa  laaaaaied. 


lofdMiNfafijr 
Bs«rai«j»>aiaM»ira/  riiNan  O.  JToia,  fpaga  U«.) 

"  Boa*  HaM  BAar  sMMag  af  ika  otIgiBal  agraaoMnt,  and 
after  Um  aoaaawwcaaMat  of  tMa  aanta,  Um  eoMolalaaaia 
ancMad  coavayMwao  to  Mr.  ABea  sad  aiyaalf  ofaeartaln 
aadtvldad  ponlaa  of  Uieir  dlatribWlTa  iliaiaa  oTUm  tmtt  of 
'  la  Um  bill,  bat  ikaea  aouvayaaeaa  wart  Boi 


land,  laeladiag  Um  town  aiiaa  beltan  Mated.  Tha  convey- 
aaeae  wan  laiaadid  aa  a  lecarMy  ftir  ear  pwHeaHan,  and 
to  give  aa  alien  or  power  la  aaibrea  tha  aareeaaeat  belbre 
waUonad,  aad  waie  ao  aUpuMed  fctia  the  origlaal  agiac- 
■aalHaair  k~— -  ••       -a- 

••  In  aaawar  to  the  aaeend  ewea-latenegateif,  I  refbr  to 
my  Ibnaar  aaawar,  aad  dlaUncUy  lay,  that  I  iliall  not  ra- 
eaiva.  Is  eoaacqaanea  of  tha  agreemeat  rafbned  to,  aay 
grioMreonipmiaiioa,  In  tba  event  the  complainants  re- 
cover, dwa  If  the  dahndaata  prevail,  aaeept  In  so  (br  u 
my  ponaar  and  mvaalf  will  than  have  done  a  pan  of  what 
we  aadaneek  to  do,  ead  will  eoaaeqaeatly  have  laaa  labor 
befttre  ua  t  whathat  wa  ihall  sMka  anytUng  In  addidoa  to 
Um  amoont  abeady  paid  ua  by  oai  eliania,  will  depend  an- 
ttrely  upon  tba  aaeaaaaAil  liaae  of  die  othar  aalia  to  ba 
ooBimenead,  aa  waU  aa  of  diia,  and  Uia  (tarther  aala  ef  tba 
land  10 rar.  '>rad. 

<•  In  am  '  to  Uia  third  croaa-latanogatory,  I  rafbr  to 
my  Ibregoing  aniwera.  Aa  to  tha  land,  Ineluding  the  town 
liu  of  Brownsville.  I  have  ahraady  aald  that  I  am  npt,  by 
any  agreement,  to  have  aay  portioa  of  said  land.  In  aay 
event,  nor  any  intereat  In  sueb  land,  but  only  a  poraoa  of 
tha  proceeds  of  sale,  ahould  tha  aame  be  Baally  recovered 
and  sold." 

William  O.  Hala'a  deposiUon,  read  In  support  of  Uia  UUa 
of  Uie  eomplainanu,  (p.  135,)  and  ha  waa  received  aa  a 
general  witness  throughout  tha  prograia  of  Uia  caaaa. 
(See  pp.  65, 71, 88, 69, 80, 110,  111,  117, 140, 145, 146, 147, 
148,149,150,151.)     »''»»''-»»» 

See  also  his  affldavita  in  law  eaae  134— tha  aama  iMe 
being  in  Issue,  and  same  counsel,  (pp.  635, 655,  650,  657, 
659  i)  alio,  contempt  cue,  (p.  337.) 

Tbe  principal  pan  of  the  documentary  evidence  of  tbe 
complaiaanta  conaisted  in  what  purported  to  ba  tranala- 
tions  flrom  tba  Spanish.  Thaaa  trandaUons  were  made  by 
William  O.  Hale,  Esq.,  and  not  awom  to,  as  shown  in  Uie 
obJecUona  and  excapUons  of  tbe  defendants,  which  were 
overruled,  (pp.  109, 110, 153.)  Translationa  were  In  soma 
respecu  false,  (p.  fWO.) 

Hee  exceptions  of  Jacob  Mussina,  (pp.  95, 108, 109, 114;) 
ovenruled,  (pp.  915, 918.)    See,  also,  p.  317. 

Tbe  court  permitted  Robert  H.  Hord, counsel  for  defend- 
ants and  witness  covertly  interested,  to  testily  at  the  hear- 
ing of  said  cause,  and  sustained  his  refUsal  to  anawer  tbe 
following  proper  and  legal  queiUon,  intended  to  show  Uiat 
be  bad  a  collusive  Interest  adverse  to  Jacob  Muaainai 

"Tbe  solicitors  of  Jacob  Mussina  put  tbe  following  ques- 
tion to  Mr.  Hord : 

" '  Have  you,  or  have  you  not,  any  understanding  or 
agreement  with  the  complalnanta,  or  either  of  them,  or  their 
agent  or  solicitor,  in  relaUon  to  the  determination  or  setUe- 
ment  of  this  cause,  or  of  any  of  the  matters  involved  there- 
in, adverse  to  any  interest  or  right  claimed  by  Jacob  Mus- 
sina, in  any  property  or  rights  involved  in  this  suit  ?  Are 
you  or  not  ioterested  in  any  such  understanding  or  aprr .. 
ment?' 

"  Which  question  Mr.  Hord  declined  to  answer ;  and 
thereupon  the  court  decided  that  the  quesUon  need  not  be 
answered. 

"  And  Uieteupon  tbe  said  Robert  H.  Hord,  being  sworn 
in  chief  by  Uie  court,  deposed  and  said  as  follows." 

Hord'a  testimony  taken  by  leave  of  the  court  in  support 


aNN 


im-^ri^. 


Byn»i*i>4i  iW>--<a 


,.^11 


^JW^UjUM^i 


'  *--  -^1^  ♦•  . 


O II  i»  1 1 1  ■ 


iiWMfWi 


' 


tis 


or  dM  title  ofewBpMMirt*!  (F 
oTibs  inttrMt  ofMdd  Hoid,  (p. 


137.)  b'iMtedtooa  Meoant 


Afldaviti  B.  K.  HordiJoUcilot  "hr  i  tbiHTMlf.in  Mp- 
pett  or  ibe  tMtHaony  oT  WiUiMi  O.  >>l<  Mttcilw  for  the 
eofflpltimnu,  (p.  119-) 

Tb«  dMTM  (p.  II*)  eovfn  •  mneb  lainr  met  of  taad 
ibM  Um  fiaM  r«Ue4  upon  In  eTldeaea,  and  adopM  difltmnt 
u4  aon  csiandeA  bMUHUifns  il>u  tlioM  dMcribed  in  tiM 
■mm  and  laehMM  in  Ik*  imKommv  •ipMninf  Um  Mrrm 
made  by  the  holden  oTiIm  giant,  (pp.  IM,  IM,  ITl,  US.) 

Jndie  Wairona  MMdd  It  W  b«  andanteod,  kv  AMlara- 
tion  glvM  out  by  bimaair  pabUtlx,  Uwt  ha  wiHrid  not  bold 


a  laaitaijr  um  at  flaivotion. 
"  "   Pottor.D.  v. 
,aad.iobn8, 


i0«o  nport,  p.  9|  M« 
depaddoM,M.  M.  Pott«r,p.  O.  ^leUwa,  F.  H.  Meiri' 


nan.  B.  0.  Franklin.  and-Jobn  8.  Jonw.  pp.  180, 181, 183, 
185, 187, 190,  and  195 ;  Intanoiaiorioi,  11,  U,  and  U,  and 
arnwan  tbarato.) 

Tranaeilpt,  tkanecry  dooket,  Jaanarjr  term,  16S9,  ibow- 
ioftbai  ibere  wip  no  eibef  chaMer^b^iM*!  done  at  (aid 


Noraaiber  1, 1851,  Jacob  Moaaiaa  inalitated  a  anit  in  the 
court  of  bia  domicile— New  Orleane  againat  WiUiam  Ail- 
ing.  Cbariea  StUlnan,  Siuaual  A.  Belden,  Elfadia  Baae,  aad 
Robert  H.  Hord,  amonc  otber  tbingi  for  a  oontpiraejr  in 
tbe  Cavacoicauaaiodafraad  and  cheat,  under  color  ofiegnl 
proceeding!,  the  Nid  Jacob  Bf  UMinn  out  of  hie  intereM  in 
tbe  property  at  BrowntTllle.  For  a  full  traaaoript  of  all 
tbe  proceedingi  and  leatimony  in  tbat  luit,  eee  pagae  418  to 
888  incluii ve.  Tliia  luit  reiulted  in  the  followlnc  verdict, 
rendered  May  91, 1853,  and  which  verdict  waa  a  virtual 
flndiag  of  guilty  aa  cbaiged,  except  aa  to  Btilbnaa,  on  wboa 
service  waa  not  had. 

JniT.- 


P.  A.Giraud,Joba  E.  Currin,  A.  David,  J.  Calder, 
*.  A.  um,  Robert  Henderton,  8.  L.  Fowler,  Dennis  Ful- 
vey,  W.  K.  Day^  B.  E.  Moore,  Amilcar  Rooz,  A.  Dunnd. 


FerdM  ami  JadfiMnl,  SUI  May,  1893. 
I    '  Jacob  MaaswA      ) 
.„     .       «.  W,796. 

WiLUAM  Alliho  e<  oi.  ) 
This  cause,  continued  flrom  yesterday,  came  on  again  to- 

Roseliusand  Wolfe  h.  Singleton,  Esqs.,  for  plaintiff,  Bon- 
ford  It  Finney  and  H.  D.  Ogden,  Esqs.,  for  defendants. 

When  the  jury  awom  in,  having  come  into  court,  were 
called,  and  after  receiving  a  written  charge  from  the  court, 
the  jury  reUred  to  deliberate  on  the  verdict;  and  after  de- 
liberation they  returned  intocourtand  delivered  the  follow- 
ing verdict,  to  wit : 

"  We,  the  Jury,  And  that  the  defendants  shall  convey  unto 
Jacob  Mussina,  tbe  plainUff,  by  good  and  sufficient  title,  all 
the  riahtt  of  property  acquired  by  Basse  and  Hord,  under  the 
tmnsfor  of  conveyance  of  the  14th  December,  1849,  and 
3Ut  January,  1850,  within  ninety  days  fhim  tbe  date  hereof, 
and  that  Elisba  Basse,  R.  H.  Hord,  B.  A.  Belden,  and  W. 
Allinc  pay  to  the  plainUff  the  sum  of  #95,000  damages. 
.  "  we,  the  Jury.  Airther  find,  that  S.  A.  Belden  and  W. 
Ailing  convey  to  J.  Mussina  the  property  purchaaed  by  them 
iron)  Basse  and  Hord,  on  the  Sth  January  1851 ;  and  on  the 
said  defondants  complying  with  the  above,  the  caid  plain- 
tiff shall  refund  the  said  amounts  advanced  by  the  defend- 
ants for  the  purchase  of  the  property ;  and  in  defhult  of  the 
defendants  making  the  above  conveyances  witliin  ninety 
days,  we,  the  Jury,  And  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff, 
J.  Mussina,  for  the  sum  of  ^14,000,  in  lieu  of  the  title  to 
the  property.  8.  L.  FOWLER,  Foreman. 

"  New  OSLIANS,  Men/  31 ,  1853. " 

Judgment  was  afterwards  rendered  upon  this  verdict  in 
accordance  with  iu  terms.  The  defendants  appealed  to 
the  supreme  court.  The  judgment  was  set  aside  by  the 
supreme  court  for  want  of  jurisdiction  in  the  court  below. 

The  proofs  that  Judge  Watrous  had  knowledge  of  the  con- 
spiracy between  the  solicitors  for  tlie  complainants,  and 
part  of  the  solicitors  for  defendants,  also  part  of  the  derend- 
ants,  to  defraud  Jocob  Mussina,  are  as  follows  :  Jacob 
Muuina  commenced  suit  against  the  conspirators,  Hord  and 
others,  in  tlie  United  Stotes  court,  at  Oalveston,  March, 
1850,  (p.  475;)  the  admission  of  Hale,  solicitor  for  the  com- 
plainants, of  his  interest  in  Uie  subject-matter  of  the  suit, 
(p.  133 ;)  the  question  tr  Hord  as  to  his  complication  in  the 
conspiracy,  and  bis  refusal  to  auswer  sustained  by  Judge 


WatroM,  Mareb,  Itel,  (p.  ISB;)  the  reception  of  the  teati- 
■ony  of  Hale  and  Hord,  and  his  deelaraiioa  ibMhe  ba« 
seen  8m  pnitiaa,  and  ibMlbay  w«n  antiilad,  (pp.  183, 186, 
lOS.) 

Motion  for  a  rule  on  Jacob  Moaeina  to  answer  for  a  con- 
tempt ofeourt,  January  4, 1854,  (p.  936 ;)  served  upon  Jacob 
Mnasina,  at  New  Orteana,  January  18,  toappear  February  1. 
Tka  earriee  waa  leas  than  twenty  days  before  the  next  rale 
dty— IsiFabsmaiy— audontoriheSiaMorTexaa.  Jacob 
Mnasina.  by  oonnaal,  January  31,  patltioned  the  court  for 
ninher  tune  to  answer,  under  the  rule  allowing  time  until 
the  next  rale  day.  Mateli  I,  In  casea  where  tbe  service  waa 
leaa  than  twenty  days,  (p.  — .)  This  petition  vru  overraled ; 
but  tbe  rale  to  show  eanaa,  M.,  ««a  aatended  until  Feb- 
ruary 18,  (p.  958.)  On  tka  ISih  Fabraary,  be  filed  exeep- 
Uono  to  tbe  Juriadietion  of  the  aouit,  as  follows,  (p.  959 :) 

"  DisntOT  CoDBT  or  Tan  0)nvn>  SrAna,  f 
"  iNrtrM  ^  SVOMS,  al  CWMrfo*.        \ 

«  Batwawi  JUMAai.  Oamia  CUvabo*  <«  ai.,  oonplain- 
mMi  nnaVKAUka  BniUiAr  e(  ti.t  defondanu.  In  chan- 
cery. No.  41. 

"And  now  comes  Jacob  Mussina  by  his  solicitor,  and  ap- 
pearing for  the  purposes  herein  set  forth,  respectfully  sub- 
mits to  this  honorable  court  whether  be  ought,  or  is  bound 
to  appear  and  answer  the  rule  to  show  cause  why  a  per- 
emptory attachment  should  not  issue  against  him,  he— 1. 
Because  no  copy  of  the  motion  and  exhibits,  upon  which 
said  rale  was  granted,  was  ever  served  on  him.  3.  Because 
the  said  Jacob  Mussina  was,  at  tbe  time  of  the  filing  of  the 
original  bill  of  complainanu,  and  is  now,  a  citizen  of  tlie 
State  of  Louishina.  and  not  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  this 
honorable  court.  3.  That  this  coun  has  no  power  to  issue 
process,  to  be  served  upon  patties  who  are.  and  always  have 
been,  beyond  its  Jurisdiction ;  and  for  other  causes,  he. ; 
and  he  refoia  to  the  farlous  papers  in  the  cause  in  support 
hereof,  fcc.  JACOB  MUSSINA. 

<<  By  Air  Solicitor,  DANL.  D.  ATCHINSON." 

Jacob  Mussina,  to  protect  his  property  iu  Texas,  filed  his 
answer,  and  puiaed  himself  of  the  allef^  contempt.  The 
following  is  the  first  part  of  htai  answer,  (p.  350 :) 

"  This  respondent,  Jacob  Mussina  proteeting  that  be  ought 
not  to  be  called  upon  to  answer  said  rule,  Iioccuse  he  ^as 
not  been  served  with  tiie  —  motion,  with  tbe  exhibits  re- 
ferred to  therein,  upon  which  the  same  was  granted,  and 
that  the  said  motion,  exhibits,  and  rale  are  wholly  insuffi- 
cient in  law,  without  waivingany  benefit  timt  may  or  might 
be  taken  by  exception  to  tbe  manifest  error  and  imperfec- 
tions thereof,  for  answer  unto  said  rule,  says,  that  lie  Ims 
never,  knowmgly  or  intentionally,  treated  with  disrespect 
the  laws,  or  any  of  the  tribunals  or  the  United  Suites ;  and 
that  it  has  always  been  his  wish  and  purpose  to  show  a  be- 
coming respect  to  the  laws,  and  to  all  the  tribunals  of  the 
United  States ;  and  that  he  has  never  intended  to  violate, 
or  attempted  to  violate,  the  li^unction  of  this  honorable 
court. 

"And  being  satisfied  tbat  there  can  be  no  contempt  when 
none  was  intended,  and  not  being  awure  that  there  has  been 
any  disobedience  to  the  iqjunction,  he  denies  that  he  has  in 
any  way  been  guilty  of  any  contempt  to,  or  disobedience  of, 
said  injunction  since  tbe  same  was  served  on  hUn,  about 
May,  1859." 

He  also  insists  that  he  was  not  prosecuting  tbe  suit  at 
New  Orleans  when  the  rule  was  served  upon  him,  but  was 
defendUig,  as  appellee,  in  the  supreme  court.  He  insists  that , 
having  been  made  the  victim  of  a  conspiracy  in  the  suit  at 
Gaiveslon,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  verdict  of  n  jury,  and  tlic 
judgment  of  a  coun  thereupon,  which  verdict  and  Judgment 
he  made  a  part  of  bis  answer,  it  was  not  competent  for  tbe 
United  States  court  in  Texas  to  prohibit  him  from  prosecu- 
ting tbe  conspirators  in  the  courts  of  the  State  of  his  resi- 
dence. Particular  attention  to  the  whole  of  the  answer  and 
exhibits  is  requested  by  the  committee. 

Febraary  34, 1854.— Court  decided  that  Jacob  Mussina 
was  guilty  of  a  contempt,  as  charged,  (p.  337.) 

February  35, 1854 — Attachment  issued,  (p.  338.) 

Mankal't  Return. 

Received  February  35, 1854;  and  having  made  diligent 
inquiry,  I  find  that  Jacob  Mussina  is,  and  has  been,  for 
many  years  past,  a  resident  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans, 
State  of  Louisiana,  and  is  not  at  present,  nor  has  been. 


"  '-^'ff^ 


II 


ndjudgii 
etent  for 


wiilria  ■%  dhiTiei.    I  MMRfor*  nnmlMi  writ  not  tne«- 
ted,  be  being  not  (bund  In  By  diitrlet. 

BBNJAMUI  MeCULLOCH. 

OMImI  StatM  MmrAal. 
Bjr  B.  T.  AUSTIN.  I>irirfy. 
aLtyuwrnn,  FVmury  91,  I8M,  (p.  900.) 

MoUonfor  timntralion  againa  .hcot  IhiMdM,  JIM  fW- 
TWOTy  S8|  18ft4a 
And  afterwardi,  to  wit,  oa  the  16tk  diy  of  Mareb,  of  the 
■une  year,  Um  eowt  here  nade  an  order,  whieh  la  In  the 
words  and  of  the  tenor  followinf,  to  wit  i 

"Order. 
"  M ABIA  Jof iFA  Cavasoi  and  another  ) 

M.  } 

"  CiABLif  Stiilm AN  and  othen.      ) 

"  The  mtition  of  the  complalaania  in  the  abore-entltlad 
cauie  for  a  writ  of  lequestration  aninat  Jacob  Miuaina, 
one  of  the  defendant*,  filed  on  the  96lh  day  of  Febniaiy. 
ISM,  having  been  heard  at  a  former  day  of  thU  terra,  ana 
the  oonrt  having  then  taken  linie  to  eoiuider  tba  laaia,  and 
being  now  fully  adviied,  and  ii  appearini  to  the  court  that 
the  writ  of  attachment  heretofore  uauedma  boon  retwawl 
not  fband,  it  ii  now  ordered  by  the  court  that  a  coramto- 
sion  or  writ  of  aequeftration,  in  dae  fbrm,  at  once  iwne  to 
Israel  B.  Biielowand  E.  D.  Kofnnan,ofthe  county  of  Cam- 
eron, and  William  O.  Webb,  of  the  county  of  Fayette,  in  this 
atate  and  district,  as  commissioners,  empowering  and  di- 
recting them,  or  any  of  them,  to  enter  upon  the  messuage*, 
lands,  tenement*,  and  real  estate  of  tlie  said  Jacob  Musslaa. 
and  collect,  receive,  and  sequester,  not  only  the  rent*  and 
proflts  of  his  real  estate,  but  also  his  goods,  chatuls,  and 
personal  estate,  and  to  retain  and  lieep  the  same  under  se- 
questration In  tncirhands  until  the  saia  Jacob  Mussina  shall 
clear  hi*  contempt,  and  this  court  malte  other  order  to  the 
contrary." 

And  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  33d  day  of  March,  of  the 
same  year,  a  writ  if  sequestration  was  issued  fVois  the 
clerk'*  office  of  our  afii  court. 

It  appears  that  bp:.Acer  settled  upon  what  he  supposed 
to  be  public  domain  of  Texas,  Novcmber35, 1847,  (p.  350.) 

Suit  was  commenced  ajrainst  him  at  Galveston  by  Lap*- 
ley,  January,  1851,  (p.  347;)  afterwards  it  seems  to  have 
been  removed  to  Austin,  (p.  353,}  and  remained  pending 
in  Uie  district  court  of  Texas  until  November,  1854,  (p.  3Sa.) 

Transferred  by  order  of  the  court  to  the  United  States 
circuit  court,  eastern  district  of  Louisiana,  on  account  of 
the  interest  of  the  Judge  In  the  land  In  controversy,  (p.  %9.) 

Spencer  wuuld  have  pleaded  the  interest  of  the  Judge  a* 
matter  in  abatement,  but  did  not  know  of  such  interest 
when  he  filed  his  answer,  (pp.  3SS,  356.) 

Numerous  other  land  suits  were  translbrred  to  the  United 
States  circuit  court  in  Louisiana  for  the  same  cause,  (p. 
380.) 

The  deed  of  Williams  and  Menard,  trustees  of  Sophia  St. 
John,  for  tlic  land  in  controversy,  to  Tliomas  M.  League, 
bears  date  July  1, 1850,  (p.  393.) 

League  to  Lnpslcy,  same  day,  (p.  398;)  see  the  answer 
and  nnidnvit  of  Spencer,  (p.  355.) 

By  tracing  the  title  set  up  to  the  land  in  question  by  Laps 
ley,  (»8  shown  upon  pp.  393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399,)  we 
conclude  that  the  interest  of  Judge  Watrous,  referred  to  in 
tlie  order,  was  acquired  in  1850. 

The  title  claimed  by  Lapsley  in  the  land  in  controversy 
originated  in  three  eleven-league  granu,made  by  the  Mexi- 
can States  of  Cnahuilu  and  Texas,  to  three  persons  in  seve- 
ralty.   (See  p.  388  et  uq.,  and  p.  401  et  iff.) 

Dy  the  record  of  the  verdict  and  judgment  in  the  case  of 
Uflbrd  vs.  Dykes  et  al,  (p.  406;)  and  the  bill  of  exceptions, 
(p.  410;)  and  the  testimony  of  Williams,  (pp.  407,408,  409, 
410,411,413,413;)  and  the  opinion  of  the  court,  (p.  114,)  it 
appeared  that  Judge  VVatruu.s  tried  certain  cases,  and  pro- 
nounced judgment  therein,  involving  a  claim  to  land  de- 
pending upon  the  same  title  as  the  land  included  in  the  suits 
transferred  to  tlie  United  States  court,  in  Lousiana,  on  ac- 
count uf  Ills  iutcrcGt,  adcr  tlie  change  of  venue  in  the 
Spencer  case. 

''■'■''     APPENDIX  No.  3.       ' -^    '""i* 
The  following  passages  of  testimony  of  Judge 


Watreuili  witiMMwa  are  token  aa  example*,  to 
■how  the  effect  of  their  haring  their  re<»>Uectiona 
refreahed  by  the  judge  on  their  examination  by 
tlM  eoaimitiee: 

TMimonye/J.  IT.  LapiUf. 

"  QmiHm,  (by  Mr.  Evar*.)  Since  you  gave  your  testl- 
moBv  oa  tho  Irst  day  of  year  exawJaatlna,  have  yon  not 
iiad  mqacat  eoa  venation*,  on  the  Mil^oet  ofyoar  leMiBioay, 
with  Judge  Watrou*  and  bis  counsel.  Judge  Hughes .' 

"  Jhmnr.  I  have  bad  repealed  eonvemtlons  with  thcM 
geallMMn  in  relaUoB  w  tba  saHjaci*  aboat  whiek  I  b«v* 
(tea  tsitlfting 

<■  t^iiStm.  Ware  not  •oate  of  tba  esplaaaiion*,  qaalifi- 
catiOM,  and  alteration*  in  your  testimony  made  at  lh«  sug- 
gestion of  Judee  Walreai  or  Jndga  Rngbe*,  or  soggesied  oj 
one  or  both  ofibem? 

"  .tnsiMr.  I  will  state  tbi* :  that  in  mr  teuimony  tbe  flnt 
day  I  wa*  esaadnad  about  a  nnniber  or  manei*  which  ap- 
pear*4  to  me  to  be  immaierinl,  and  I  spoke  without  very 
much  reflection,  when  the  testimony  cam*  to  be  read  over,  I 
hand  I  had  not  been  as  definite  a*  I  desired  to  be  when  I 
laeanalnMI  thai  ■ame  ponioB*  of  my  leattmoav  a^eht  be 
regnrdad  aa  BMtarial.  On  eoaversint  with  Judge  Hogtae* 
and  Judge  Wanoaa,  after  aiy  taatinony  wa*  uken  down, 
and  on  my  attention  being  calM  to  eae  or  two  matwn  as 
to  which  it  waa  desired  that  I  should  be  more  definite,  I 
reflected  on  the  aal^act,  aad  I  caaM  to  Nia  eoaelaaiaa  that 
it  wa*  proper  ibat  I  ibonld  apeak  Moie  daflaitely.  It  wa* 
desired  that  I  shoaM  be  a*  deflnite  a*  my  reeoUeetion  wonM 
enable  me  to  be.  Tbe  matter  I  now  rafar  to,  partienleriy, 
is  in  regard  to  what  transpired  «  Selnia  at  the  time  of  tbe 
eeatfuel;  bat  Ibelargerponionoflheoofrections  were  made 
by  me  without  any  auggestlon  firom  either  of  lliese  gentle- 
men, merely  (br  tbe  pnrpoae  of  tendering  ay  testimony  as 
accurate  aa  praetieable. 

<<  ^miHaii,  (by  Judge  Watroaa.)  Have  yea  made  any 
part  of  your  depo*ition  or  statement*  on  suggration*  made 
by  me  or  Judge  Hngbes,  or  in  eoMeqnence  onuijrtbinf  *i  ther 
of  us  ha*  said  to  yoa  ? 

« .dnnrar.  No,  sir ;  exeenl  so  <kr  aa  my  recollectinn  wu 
rellreabed  by  the  converwuioii*."— JWIaiewy,  p.  ISST 

Teslimony  of  Jomss  J^««. 

"  ^tMtlion.  Have  you  conversed  with  Judge  Wattoa* 
since  the  adjournment  ye*terday,in  regard  to  tbe  matter  of 
this  rehearing? 

<<  ^tuwer.  I  conversed  with  bim  about  notbing  with  re- 
gard to  tbe  rehearing  whatever. 

<■  QnesHdn.  Have  you  convened  With  hbn  at  aH  in  rehi- 
lion  to  the  testimony  you  gave  yesterday? 

<<  .ttuwtr.  I  did. 

"  Oueition.  As  to  wh?t  point? 

"  Antwer.  Simply  us  to  the  point  that  he  misandantood 
my  testimony  yesterday.  I  approaebed  him  and  said, '  I  do 
not  wish  to  talk  with  you  as  a  witness  at  all.'  He  repeated 
that;  < and,' said  he, 'you  nmytalk  to  anybody  else  you 
please,  but  I  will  not  hear  you.'  He  snyed  in  the  room  a  few 
minutes,  and  I  spoke  to  others  about  it.  He  made  no  reply, 
except  to  say  tliat  he  thought  1  wa*  mistaken  in  what  I 
stated  yesterday ;  that  is,  that  my  venion  of  It  waa  not  ex- 
actly correct.  Mr.  Gushing  wa*  present  when  I  addressed 
ihejudge,  and  both  of  them  said  they  would'not  liear  me." 
—Teatitnony,  p.  365. 

"tJuesHon,  (by  Mr.  Crapkah.)  What  portion  of  your  tes- 
timony yesterday  was  it  that  Judge  Watrous  referred  to 
when  he  said  your  recollection  was  erroneous,  or  your  state- 
ment was  not  correct  ? 

"  Gnawer.  I  had  designated  Ihe  names  of  diven  lawyen, 
who  had  appeared  for  Mr.  Mussina,  and  had  said  that  Mr. 
Hord,  and  Mr.  Potter,  and  Mr.  Merriman,  and  Mr.  Hart- 
ley, and  Atchison,  were  the  counse'  for  Muislna ;  and  I  said 
that  I  thought  Atchison  was  perhaps  in  court  at  the  time 
attending  to  the  case;  Judge  Watroiis  said  no;  that  Mr. 
Atchison  dill  not  attend  to  it  nt  all.    That  was  one  point. 

"  Queafton,  (by  Mr.  Bim.inuhurst.)  Did  he  suggest  who 
did  attend  to  it  ? 

•'  .;4iuirer.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not  say  anything  in  my  pres- 
ence then.  I  heard  him  say  this  morning,  in  conversation 
witli  another,  Mr.  Iloivnrd  I  think,  that  Mr.  Potter  attended 
to  it ;  but  he  did  not  say  so  to  me  then. 

"  QHCstion,  (by  Mr.  Chapmam.)  You  were  going  to  stale 
another  point;  wliat  was  it  ? 

"  Jmwer.  It  was  in  regard  to  my  testimony  as  to  Mr. 
Atcliisoii's  conversation  with  my  son.    I  still  adhere  to 


# 


.   S 


Vtty4Siimti0ti 


fr:jt«»-. 


"mxx'm  iiiiiiinwi  iiiiO' 


IS 


wliMlwM,«ltliM|liMiweollMllM«iknftMi«tM.    I 


i! 


i 


faeu.    I  ftve  my  umlcnuiidlni  of  wbu  il  wm,  ud  I  ra- 
laln  Uiat  reeoll«ellon  yet."— rM(iaioii|r,  p.  368. 

A  Aw  of  Um  iMnjr  oontrmdietory  atateawnta  of 
J.  A'  H.  CleTeland,  the  d«patT  marshal  of  Judn 
Watroaa'a  eourt,  are  placed  in  Juzuqiositioa  to 
dww  how  the  teaUmony  of  wia  wilneaa  haa 
varied  on  the  different  daya  of  hia  examination 
befbre  die  committee,  showing  also  a  refreshment 
of  hia  recollection  by  the  Jud^: 

TmUmomi  of  J.  A.  H,  ClnttmU,  mt  to  the  cetunine*  <« 
court  about  Mr.  AleUionU  taking  an  appeal  <n  the  Cata- 

tot  COM. 

Da  MtamiaatiaBa  AofU  JMk 
*  <<  ^hmMmi,  (by  Mr.  Obiax.)   lIMi  I  do  not  weatMr  I 
only  want  wbat  wa*  done  in  open  eowt,  or  what  Ju^ 
Watnini  heaid.    Wbat  waa  aaid  about  taking  an  appeal  I 

•<  Jinetoer.  Judge  Watnwa  diiectad  me— 
.  "  OueitUn,  laopeneotHt/ 

"  OmmMm.  In  the  pieaence  of  Atehiion? 

<<  jfmuitr.  No,  air.  Mr.  Atebiaon  bad  quit  tba  eonit- 
borne,  vary  annry. 

•<  4{iMiMeit.  Did  be  my,  wbea  be  quitted  tbe  eouit-bouae, 
Ihnt  IM  bad  abandoned  the  cane  ? 

"Amwer,  So,  air;  1  do  not  recollect  i  be  waa  in  a  bad 
humor  generally. 

<<  OmmMoh.  And  be  left  tbe  court  ? 

"  Jntwtr.  He  left  tbe  court. 

<<  ^MMtfon.  After  be  left  tbe  eourt«  wbatdid  Jadge  Wat- 
roue  layf 

"  Jtntwer.  After  be  left  tbe  court,  Judge  Watioua  ordered 
me— I  waa  then  a  deputy  manhal,  and  in  attendance  on 
tbe  court—to  appoint  a  bailii^  and  keep  bim  In  the  eonrt- 
bouetffor  tbe  pnrpoaeof  lettiag  bim  know  if  Mr.  Atcbiion 
came  in,  and  to  keep  tbe  court  open  until  the  time  of  the 
starting  of  the  boat  (or  BrownivUle,  where  he  waa  going  to 
bold  hia  neit  term.  In  place  of  potting  a  bailiff  in  court,  I 
remained  there  myael^  and  atayed  there  until  twelve  o'clock 
each  night. 

"  OMiMon.  What  day  waa  that? 

<<  Anewtr.  That  waa  the  16th  and  17ih  of  January.  The 
court  atHoomed  at  tba  time  tbe  bell  waa  rang  on  board  tbe 
boat  for  paiiengera  to  go  on  board. 

"  QiMition,  The  court  a^loumRd  the  17tb  of  January, 
1853.' 

"Afuwer.  Yaa. 

"  QuMtion.  When  waa  it  that  Atebiaon  left  tbe  court- 
loom? 

"  Afuwer.  On  the  morning  of  the  15th  of  January,  1393. 

"  fiMiMon.  The  decree  waa  rendered  on  tbe  IStb  i 

"  Amwer,  Yea. 

"QHoMon.  Waa  there  any  further  buaincH  done  after 
the  decree  waa  rendered  i 

"  Antwer.  No  fUrtherbusinen  waa  done,  but  to  make  up 
the  minutea  and  aign  them.  That  tbe  Judge  did,  and  went 
fVom  the  court-houie  to  the  boat. 

"  QiMiNtMi.  Waa  there  any  fUtther  buaineu  done  be- 
tween tbe  15th  and  Hib? 

<■  Aniwer,  I  do  not  think  tliere  won. 

"  (Jueition.  Then  the  last  busineaa  done  waa  the  rendi- 
tion of  the  decree? 

"  Anewer.  I  think  ao. 

"  OueiMon.  What  time  of  tlie  day  waa  it  on  the  15lb  i 

"  Amacr.  I  Ihink  the  decree  was  rendered  about  eleven 
or  twelve  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  15th.  I  kept  tbe 
court  open. 

>    "  Qvetttan.  How  late  that  day? 
^    <'  Atuwer.  Till  about  twelve  o'clock  that  night. 

"  OueiKon.    And  the  next  day  ? 

"  Jntwer.  I  went  (Irom  the  market-houae,  about  day- 
light, to  the  court-house,  and  remained  there  that  day  until 
about  twelve  o'clock  that  night. 

"  Question.  That  was  the  16tb? 

<<  Antwer.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Queation.  Well,  Uie  17th? 

"Answer.  About  twelve  o'clock,  on  the  17tb,  Judge 
Watrous  left  for  Brownsville,  on  the  boat. 


"  OfietUam.  When  waa  Jadge  Watrmu's  eoart  ai4row*B- 
vMelield? 

'<  .dn«Mr.  It  waa  ktliia  Um  aaath  of  January. 

"  QfteeUmt.  Tkea  thla  keeping  tbe  court  open  after  tbe 
faaainest  waa  done  waa  all  anoaual. 

M  Amiwer.  Yea ;  bat  the  Judge  told  me  be  wanted  to  alRird 
Mr.  Atebiaon  an  opporlanity  to  uke  an  appeal. 

<<  QmiKms.  dm  Atebiaon  know  that  this  wna  going  oa  ? 
liuwer.  I  do  not  know ;  I  think  be  did. 


QfuiHtn.  Whu  makea  yoe  ibink  be  did? 
Aneam.  I  f  '    '  "    * 


.  aakad  Mr.  Joaea  to  tall  bim,  and  to  say  that 

I  waa  tired  remaining  there. 

"  QiMtMofl.  Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  that 
Atebbon  knew  it ;  had  the  Judge  informed  Atebiaon,  boibre 
be  loft  the  court  la  a  pet,  that  lie  should  keep  the  court  open 
flir  the  purpoee  of  fhcilicating  an  appeal,  or  was  this  order 
made  after  Atebiaon  had  left;  I  want  to  see  If  Atchison 
knew  it  i  did  Atchison  eome  in  there  at  all  ? 

"^Mwer.  Itoisirt  be  never  came. 

"  Qfftton.  was  there  a  jsretty  fUll  attendance  of  the 
liar,  at  the  yme  j|iat  Judge  Watwaa  t«l4  you  to  keep  the 
easiRv|Mar 

'<  Aneteer.  I  do  not  ihink  there  were  a  great  many  law- 
yers in  the  room ;  I  am  certain,  though,  there  were  some. 

"  OufsMon.  Do  you  know  of  any  fbct  that  would  tend  to 
aatisly  ns  on  the  point,  whether  Atebiaon  knew  of  Judge 
Watroua'a  keening  the  court  open  ? 

"  ^nniwr.  Nothing  more,  than  that  I  myself  sent  Atchi- 
son word  by  Jones,  the  deputy  clerk. 

«  QueiMon.  But  no  step  waa  Uken  flirther? 

"  .^nnrer.  I  did  not  feel  bound  to  follow  Mr.  Atchison. 

"  QueiMon.  Yon  sent  Jones  after  him? 

"  Anneer.  I  did  that  us  a  matter  of  accommodation.  I 
wanted  to  get  rid  of  sitting  tbere  day  and  night. 

"  QuetMon.  Where  was  Judge  Watrous  these  two  days  ? 

"  Antaer.  f  n  the  office,  adjoining  the  court.  He  directed 
me  to  come  to  bim,  if  Atchison  came  in. 

"  QuetHon.  Beftiro  Atchison  left  tbe  court  was  anything 
said'by  Atchison  or  by  the  Judge  about  an  appeal  at  all  ? 

"•tnticer.  I  do  not  recollect. "-rPa^s  181, 183,  183, 184, 

iBOa  

On  examination.  May  1. — J.  A.  H.  Cleveland 
examined  by  Mr.  Gushing,  counsel  for  Judge 
Watroua. 

<<  0«nHon.  You  have  stated  that,  after  the  complaints 
by  Mr.  Alchison  in  court,  on  the  rendition  of  Judge  Wat- 
roua'a decision  in  Cavaaos  m.  Shannon,  the  Judge  ordered 
the  court  to  be  kept  open  to  receive  an  appeal.  Was  that 
order  given  befbre  or  after  Mr.  Atchison  left  court  ? 

"^ntiMr.  I  waa  mistaken,  tlie  other  dny,  about  that. 
On  reflection,  and  on  thinking  a  good  deal  about  it,  I  recol- 
lect pretty  much  wbat  occurred  in  court  The  order  was 
mode  in  Mr.  Atchison's  hearing.  Just  as  he  was  in  the  act 
of  leaving  court. 

"  Quftiion.  Do  you  recollect  the  words  that  Judge  Wat- 
ions  employed  in  making  that  order  ? 

"  Antwer.  I  do,  air. 

"  QuMtion.  Please  state  them. 

"  Antwer.  At  the  close  of  tbe  discussion  between  Mr. 
Atchison  and  the  Judge,  Mr.  Atchison  was  evidently  angry, 
and  replied  in  pretty  harsh  terms,  as  I  stated,  to  thu Judge. 
The  Judge  replied  to  him, '  I  do  not  intend  to  be  put  in  the 
wrong  in  this  matter ;'  and  he  turned  to  roe  and  said, '  Mr. 
Marshal,  do  you  keep  this  court  open  as  long  as  I  can  pnssi- 
bl V  remain  here,  Ibr  the  purpoHe  oCletting  Mr.  Atchison  take 
whatever  course  he  pleases.'  He  turned  away,  with  his 
hat  in  his  hand,  and  left  the  court-room."— Page  158. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  EviLNa. 

"  QuetMon.  You  recollect  1  was  quite  particular  in  my 

Inquiries  as  to  the  notice  given  in  court  as  to  keeping  tlic 

court  open  for  an  appeal ;  whether  Atchison  had  or  lioQ  not 

left  the  court  when  that  notici;  was  given  ;  have  you  hail 

I  any  conversation  with  any  party  on  Uiat  point  since  ? 

I  <■  Aniwer.  I  have,  sir ;  but  it  was  in  order  to  see  whether 

I I  was  right  or  not. 

;     "  Ouuiion.  With  whom  ? 

I     "  .;initi!er.  With  Colonel  Love,  and  with  Judge  Watrous, 
and  with  Mr.  Shearer. 
'■  Qu«>«on.  Did  you  travel  to  this  city  with  Colonel  liove.' 
"  Antwer.  No ;  I  came  here  alone.    1  ouine  a  ililTerent 

{  route  ftom  the  other  witnesses. 

"  QuMlion.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Culnnel 

!  Love,  since  you  got  here,  ai  to  the  points  you  expected  to 

prove?  *..K^iAI;^ : .?  I  •  -'f/risro;'     ;-.IW  W*'V-^E  ''    '   .»■ 


M^^ia^mp    .wup^i<l»wlT^|^ 


It 


"  jf  WMT.  Only  ai  die  ite*  I  tan  tMti.   I 
recoiled  and  iiau  tlM  ihiM  M  w«N  M I  ca«M.   TlntWM 
n*  reawii  for  Inquiring  and  raftariiin|  Mjr  ■eaory. 

>■  QmoHoii,  (by  Jndfe  Watmn.)  YM  ipaiMar  lia*te| 
alked  wlih  ne  on  thU  inject  iIb««  tli*  ckwt  of  jrouf  uali- 
monjr ;  did  I  approaeh  jron  on  iha  raUeci,  or  7o«  aa  f 

"  JItuwtr.  I  aiked  too  ;  and  I  think  I  taid— 

(Uueiilon  eicladed.}— Page  680. 
Tatitnony  of  J.  Jl.  H.  CfeMtoml,  l»  rclaM««  I*  M«  natare 

of  Ikt  inUmt  Hielofd  »y  Jiidf  ITatroiM  ta  tko  Jafrfry 

milt. 

On  eaamiaation,  April  99. 

"OtuMon.  WliatwaiialdlnopeBcoanbrtbaJiidMr 

"  ^luicvr.  The  Judge  reAned  to  make  any  order,  aa  f  tell 
yoo.  He  told  him  he  wouM  not.  I  reeolleet  hia  expraa- 
(ion  very  diitincily.  It  waa  rather  a  hootely  one.  It  waa, 
that  he  would  not  touch  It  with  a  tbrty-lbot  pole. 

"  OiiaMoii.  He  uied  that  exprenionf 

"  Atuwtr.  Yei,  lir,  he  did. 

"  Qiiettfon.  Did  he  lay  why  he  would  not  touch  it  with 
a  fiwty-foot  pole  I 

"  Antwer.  He  had  diteloeed  hii  intereit. 

"  Oueition.  Did  be  aay  at  that  time  what  Intereit  ha  had  F 

"Jtnnctr.  I  cannot  dUtincUy  iUle  that.  The  record  will 
ihow. 

"  (luatton.  Do  yon  recollect  what  the  Judge  laid  la  rela- 
tion to  bit  intereit,  if  he  had  any;  <r  in  relatioa  to  hia  die- 
qualiflcation  lo  try  the  case*,  or  to  make  an  order  in  the«r 

"  Jhuwtr.  My  belief  ii,  that  he  lUted  it  waa  on  aeeoani 
of  hii  relationibip  by  blood  or  marriage. 

"  QuctHon.  nut  did  yon  get  the  idea  then,  flrom  what  Iha 
Judge  laid,  that  be  wai  the  owner  of  the  land,  and  directly 
intereited  in  the  lubject-raatter  of  the  niiti? 

«  ^nnver.  I  cannot  lay  potitively  about  that.  I  do  not 
think  I  did. 

"  QtMflion.  Did  you  ever  get  that  Idea  until  after  the  eaaei 
were  traniferred  to  Auitln  r 

"jftuioer.  No,  lir;  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

<<  Oueilion.  You  did  not  know  the  fikct,  iflhet  it  ba? 

"  wfiwuxr.  No,  lir. 

"  Queilion.  And  you  thought  it  wu  a  diiqnalUleatlon  re- 
lulting  ftt>m  bii  connection  with  the  partlM? 

"  Jlnstfier.  I  Judged  lo  flrom  the  entry  on  the  record. 

<■  Quctlion.  I  did  not  aik  your  Judgment  fVom  the  record. 
I  aik  you  to  ipeak  from  what  Judge  Watroui  laid  in  open 
court? 

"  JituwiT.  I  have  told  you  ai  neariy  aa  I  can  recollect." 
(See  p.  181 :  alio,  pp.  174, 177, 180.) 

In  cross-examination,  May  1. 

"  WiTifEii I  deiire  to  make  lome  explanation  of  my 

teitiinony  on  Thunday.  In  regard  to  the  Judge  diieloiing 
Ilia  interest  at  the  April  term  nf  1851, 1  recollect  that  he 
itated  that  he  wai  part  owner  of  the  landi. 


•<  QwiiWin,  (by  Ml.  Ci.au.)  U  that  alt  tka  eorreeUon 
yoawWitamake? 

«  ^tannr.  That  ia  all,  except  aa  lo  !ka  le«gtk  of  April  aad 
May  tarn.    I  laid  OAy-iix  dayi ;  it  waa  probably  nTeaty 

•'  ^Mifiea.  When  did  thii  new  recoUeetion  come  to 
yon? 

*<  .IniiMr.  On  ittumiog  to  ny  room  and  thiaking  over 
U»  Wheal  wai  called  here,  I  did  not  RMW  on  what  point 
I  wai  golag  to  be  exaaUned. 

'*  QaMNan.  Do  yoa  not  raeolleet  how  1  qaaitloned  you 
venr  pantevUily  on  that  petatf 

"Jkntmtr.  Taai  bat  yoa  qaeaUoaed  me  very  hut. 

"  QmmMm.  Wham  did  thia  thtag  reiam  to  your  reeoUoe- 

"  JhuwoT'  On  the  veiv  day  I  waa  examined  here.  1 
went  to  my  room,  and  I  began  to  think  and  itudy  it  over. 

"  ^HMMm.  Yo«  recollect  that  I  put  the  queiiion  half  a 
dosen  timea,  with  a  view  to  reftndi  your  meaMry  I 

"JlrnMn.  I  reeolleet  yow  did. 

"  QimtiMt.  Did  yon  have  any  convenatioa  with  Judge 
Watroui  oa  that  point  i 

•'  .rdnnMr.  I  did  have  a  eonvenaiinn  with  Judge  Wat- 
raw,  far  the  parpoie  of  refkeibing  my  menM>ry. 

"  Qu*Mt».  And  he  did  reflreeh  it  ? 

•'  Jkmmtt.  He  did,  lir ;  but  Judge  Watroui  eouM  not  get 
me  10  Male  a  Ibliehnnd 

<•  Jj/tmUtm.  Bm  your  reeoUectloa  of  that  Incident  ie  aid- 
ed by  yowr  eoMverwthm  with  Judge  Wairooi  i 

«  .ftiwir.  I  talked  with  Judge  Watrooa  aad  Colonel 
liOveaboMil. 

"  ^MeMen.  When  did  yoa  have  that  eonvenatlon  aboat 
lif 

••  JhuMT.  The  evening  of  the  day  I  wai  examined. 

"  QueMeii.  Caa  yen  ^ve  the  language  the  Judge  need 
when  he  aiated  hia  peeuniary  iaterait  in  the  mitt  i 

"  .MMMr.  He  Mated  that  they  need  not  ptoeeed  any 
flirther ;  that  he  could  noi.try  aay  of  the  Lapaley  cam;  that 
he  had  an  lateraM  in  them— an  Intereit  by  marriage  i  and 
that  he  wis  part  owner  of  the  laadi.  That  wai  about  the 
language  he  uaed,  aa  well  aa  I  recollect. 

''QmoHoii.  Tbenheialdliewaipartownerofihelaada? 

"  .JMiMr.  Tea ;  ha  bad  a  penonal  InlereM  hi  tiie  laada, 
or  hi  the  luit. 

"  OutMon.  Or  in  the  ral4ect-matter  I 

"  Jhuwr.  Tea  t  that  waa  hia  expreeilon,  I  think. 

*'  Qunllon.  And  are  you  certain,  now,  that  the  diiqnali- 
lying  relationi  that  he  ipoke  of  waa  not  one  of  blood  or 
marriage? 

» .danMr.  I  think  be  itated  both— that  be  had  an  intenn 
both  wayi? 

"  QmaMon.  Wai  it  true  that  be  bad  aa  intereit,  by  blood 
or  marriage,  dixquaiuying  him  I 

"  .ANtwer.  I  do  not  know  whetiier  It  waa  true  or  not."— 
Page  190.] 


M>^ 


!flt*'^ 


•r  V,*>  -J  ;  '•■rV* 


/'■^ 


:^7^im^^ 


■  :■      iHitMaAiiiiiii- 


